Dad2three
Gold Member
- Jun 22, 2014
- 13,013
- 1,614
And YOU can't give me ONE policy CONservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history on. Got it!
Fiscally-Conservative Policies Equal More Prosperity, According to Rich States, Poor States -
Goodie, ALEC says so *shaking head*
![]()
The states most dependent on the federal government are who you'd least expect
Red states more dependent on federal government - Business Insider
![]()
Moocher Red States Still Don’t Want Free Healthcare Money With Obama’s Name On It
Five years after passage of the Affordable Care Act, some red states are still debating, or outright refusing, free money because they just really REALLY hate President Obama:
Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia said yes to Medicaid expansion when the law went into effect. Since then, just six more have signed on. States that say yes get billions of additional federal dollars, but many Republican lawmakers are loathe to say yes to the Obama administration.
The expansion enables adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level to receive Medicaid. The federal government picks up the whole tab for their care through 2016, then tapers its support down to 90% of the costs.
It would be HI-larious, if the consequences weren’t so severe and even fatal, that states who’ve happily sucked off the government teat for years are all of a sudden uninterested in federal dollars for poor people to be able to go to the doctor.
Moocher Red States Still Don’t Want Free Healthcare Money With Obama’s Name On It
There NEVER was a health care crisis as there NEVER were 46 million uninsured Americans just as there never were 155 million americans with Pre-existing conditions that prevented them from getting health insurance.
There IS a plan to destroy 1,400 companies that pay $100 billion a year in taxes and putting 450,000 people out of work!
This from the person that KNEW that fools like you could be easily swayed by falsehoods!
So much so Obama TOLD you he was fooling you and he even hired a guy who said people like you make up the "Stupidity of American Voter" to pass Obamacare!
NOW for the FACTS supporting these above STATEMENTS!
Obama once said:
“I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”
Even Obama admitted 10 million were illegals not eligible so he AFTER he repeated the above lie and when ACA passed HE said there were 36 million!
1) 10 million Obama counted were not Americans... not citizens per the Census:
Proof: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
2) Obama failed to get 14 million people eligible for Medicaid enrolled. That's all that is needed. That leaves 22 million.
http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf
3) 18 million under 34 don't NEED insurance. Can afford employers' plans as they make over $50k. That leaves 4 million.
CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009
There have never been 46 million UNINSURED AMERICANS but less then 4 million!
Obama has said "I prefer a single payer health care system". Well logic would state "single payer" means no other PAYERS!
So what happens to the 1,400 insurance companies?
Bubba, I'm TIRED of spanking YOU and your bullshit right wing memes. Until you man up on Dubya's subprime bubble, go fuk yourself!
Frank blames the poor for housing crash
Congressman Frank makes assertions about who was responsible, but he, like all those who hold his position, have no data. He says that the banks were responsible, but cannot challenge the numbers I have outlined above. These numbers show, beyond question, that it was government housing policy that caused the financial crisis. Even he has admitted it. In an interview on Larry Kudlow's show in August 2010, he said "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie ... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis
YOU WANT TO USE A LINK FROM THIS KLOWN BUBBA
"PETER WALLISON"??? The guy who was the only one of Dubya's fin crisis comm to back AEI's LONG debunked talking points? lol
Yeah he had a different opinion in 2004 Bubba
4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”
LMAOROG
No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis
3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.
Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
>
![](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FSept09_CF1.jpg&hash=e52d635147dd55ceaa55b68ba0d3550e)
The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative
Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom
•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006
>
Subprime Lenders were (Primarily) Private
![](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2F647-20081013-ECONOMY-subprime.large_.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&hash=8c6a9d1781286e13d83391c7436d3db7)
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy
These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.
LOL