Pig F**king Traitors: the GOP

[MV/Liberace!]

White people don't have enough babies...

racist.

[MV/Liberace!]

Those who come here mostly do so for economic opportunity and to flee from the society they came from.  And that's fine, except that they - like too many others from other places - start right in wanting us to change our society, laws, and customs for them.  The Muslims are the worst offenders of this.

So fuck that.

agreed 1000%.  soooo... your islamic cesspool of a country sucks, you decide to leave for a better life in a western culture, and then you start trying to implement the same cultural sensibilities that made your country of origin a shit hole to begin with?  i never understood that.  i stood here in my office one day arguing with the american born and privileged 18 year old son of a wealthy surgeon who thinks sharia law is the best possible legal system.  he has no idea how different his life would be under sharia law, and probably thinks the same prosperity would exist for him only with some kind of islamic utopia on top of it all.

i don't think it's an accident that every islamic country in the world sucks my asshole.  trash on the streets, little regard for human life or public safety, corruption, no pollution standards (or at least they aren't enforced), no social safety net, tribal complications, run down schools... bleh. 

[PB the Deplorable]

agreed 1000%.  soooo... your islamic cesspool of a country sucks, you decide to leave for a better life in a western culture, and then you start trying to implement the same cultural sensibilities that made your country of origin a shit hole to begin with?  i never understood that...

... bleh.

The same thing has happened to the Western states here in the US.  Up until fairly recently we didn't have the crime, high taxes, corruption, useless yet intrusive bureaucracy, large cities full of poor non-productive people, and all the rest of the problems at anything like the levels the (especially) North-Eastern states had.  There was more personal freedom and opportunity here.  The states weren't solid Republican, but the D's were Conservative or at least 'moderate' and understood and were part of the culture

The migration has always been east to west, but now we've been swamped by these Libs - fleeing the shithole situations they created back home, and have now moved here and put the Progressive' Democrats in power.  After wrecking California first - then Oregon and Washington, they've decided it sucks here now too, and are on to do the same in Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana...

[MV/Liberace!]

The migration has always been east to west, but now we've been swamped by these Libs - fleeing the shithole situations they created back home, and have now moved here and put the Progressive' Democrats in power.  After wrecking California first - then Oregon and Washington, they've decided it sucks here now too, and are on to do the same in Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana...

the same is happening in north/south carolina.  liberals are moving in from the northeast and bringing their voting habits with them.

[VtaGeezer]

Do you really think we can borrow money at the levels we have been over the past two administrations (Bush II doubled the National Debt from around $5.5 Trillion to around $11 Trillion, and under Obama it's now over $18 Trillion)

Bingo.  Bush Conservatives doubled the debt by cutting taxes while starting the two most expensive-to-wage wars in history, and setting up the world economies to be looted by the bankers as they looked the other way. Obama, who had to backfill the US monetary crater left by the conservatives while hobbled by a costly war born of conservative lies, an economy wrecked by conservative fervor, and the unprecedented conservative-filibuster controlled Congress that doubled-down on low taxes, still has raised the debt by only half. 

You say "I have nothing but contempt for Barack Obama, and despise him more than any other politician in my lifetime...". Your own narrative shows how that makes absolutely no sense.  So your seething hatred for Obama is either irrational; meaning you're just a raving nut; or is based on an unsaid darker basis.  Now what could that be?

[PB the Deplorable]

the same is happening in north/south carolina.  liberals are moving in from the northeast and bringing their voting habits with them.

We're on our way to becoming a third world shithole ourselves.

Somewhere down the line our kids and grandkids are going to ask why we threw it all away.  I guess we'll tell them we were being 'compassionate' and 'politically correct'

[VtaGeezer]

We're on our way to becoming a third world shithole ourselves.

Somewhere down the line our kids and grandkids are going to ask why we threw it all away.  I guess we'll tell them we were being 'compassionate' and 'politically correct'

Just hand them a history of post-Reagan conservatism; wrapped in a flag of course.

[albrecht]

the same is happening in north/south carolina.  liberals are moving in from the northeast and bringing their voting habits with them.

In my FEMA Region VI we face a treble threat: Obama's politics of revenge against those who voted against him, the open-border, and Californians moving in. All bringing their politics and views. What is amazing is how people flee crappy areas (whether economically, politically, culturally, or naturally depending on place) and then expect that the same ideas and politics will "work" in the area to which they emigrate. If the USA is so bad, don't come here. If a State is so "backward" and bad then why move here?

[PB the Deplorable]

Bingo.  Bush Conservatives doubled the debt by cutting taxes while starting the two most expensive-to-wage wars in history, and setting up the world economies to be looted by the bankers as they looked the other way. Obama, who had to backfill the US monetary crater left by the conservatives while hobbled by a costly war born of conservative lies, an economy wrecked by conservative fervor, and the unprecedented conservative-filibuster controlled Congress that doubled-down on low taxes, still has raised the debt by only half. 

You say "I have nothing but contempt for Barack Obama, and despise him more than any other politician in my lifetime...". Your own narrative shows how that makes absolutely no sense.  So your seething hatred for Obama is either irrational; meaning you're just a raving nut; or is based on an unsaid darker basis.  Now what could that be?

Well, Bush II doubled the National Debt from $5.5T to $11T.  Obama is on track to double it again.  Increasing the deficit by, say, $10 Trillion is worse than increasing it $5 to 6 Trillion.

Beyond that, there is more to this country than money.  I would like for us to get back to the Constitution,  With each Presidency we seem to get further away, each of them starting off where his predecessor left off and setting new precedents. 

No one in the modern era has done more damage to our Constitutional Republic than Barack Obama.  I don't recall any recent President so blatantly ignoring court decisions, bypassing Congress at every turn, ignoring current law while replacing it with his own.  Purging our best military leaders and replacing them with his toadies, alienating our allies, stacking the DC appeals court, using the IRS against his enemies, stonewalling Congressional oversight, importing people we are going to now have to support just so they will increase the Democrat voting base, doing what he can to fan racial tensions, leaving the world worse off thru his actions and inactions, it's almost endless. 

It reminds me of the Clinton regime with the constant abuses and scandals, except those scandals were mostly personal.  As distracting as they were, and as bad as it is for a sitting President to have that level of distraction, at least they were mostly personal, or mostly contained within the sewer of Washington DC.  With this guy, he is actually damaging the country - given his associates and ideology, it's almost certainly being done on purpose.

I could go on, but that's why.

[Gd5150]

Bingo.  Bush Conservatives doubled the debt by cutting taxes while starting the two most expensive-to-wage wars in history, and setting up the world economies to be looted by the bankers as they looked the other way. Obama, who had to backfill the US monetary crater left by the conservatives while hobbled by a costly war born of conservative lies, an economy wrecked by conservative fervor, and the unprecedented conservative-filibuster controlled Congress that doubled-down on low taxes, still has raised the debt by only half. 

You say "I have nothing but contempt for Barack Obama, and despise him more than any other politician in my lifetime...". Your own narrative shows how that makes absolutely no sense.  So your seething hatred for Obama is either irrational; meaning you're just a raving nut; or is based on an unsaid darker basis.  Now what could that be?

The Bush tax cuts at the time they were passed totaled 100 billion. They helped the upper class by cutting everyone under 30k income to 0% taxes. They were made literally 12 months after Cllnton ran around in the summer of 2000 claiming 1st 3 trillion, then 4 trillion, then 5 trillion, and finally 5.5 trillion in surplus. As typical with Clinton is was complete BS. There was never a surplus. Of course the media reported it as fact. The claims were made 3 month after the Clinton stock market crash of 2000. Anyone can access a stock market chart and see the market crashed almost a year before Bush took office. The recession was in full bloom when Bush took office, and by 911, it was over. And despite 911, the economy boomed until 2006 when the mortgage bubble burst.

By late 2008 the so-called banking crisis was underway. Bailouts had to be passed in 24hrs because there was an election coming, however they were so important the money wasn't dispersed for 6 months. Obama took office a few months after the so-called crisis. It's now 6 years later, no 911, and the economy is still in the toilet. 25 million less full time jobs. Millions have lost healthcare. All thanks to Obama's government insurance. A law passed to empower the government and Democrats.

Unfortunately Obama didn't benefit from the invention of the internet like Clinton did. He was also successful in passing government health insurance where Hillary failed in 1993. This saved Bill Clinton, it's been Obama's downfall and he'll forever be remembered as one of the worst presidents in history. Add the disastrous foreign policy and race relations mess he's created, and it just gets worse.

[PB the Deplorable]

Bingo.  Bush Conservatives doubled the debt by cutting taxes while starting the two most expensive-to-wage wars in history, and setting up the world economies to be looted by the bankers as they looked the other way. Obama, who had to backfill the US monetary crater left by the conservatives...

You've mentioned a couple of things several times, and I've meant to ask you about them but never have.

My understanding of the economic collapse of 2008 is that the underlying problem was and is the level of debt.  US government debt, foreign government debt, corporate debt, household debt.  Anything could have triggered a recession due to this at anytime, given the right spark.

Going back to the 90s it was determined that the reason poor people couldn't get a mortgage was due to 'racism', and thus the sub-prime loan was born.  At some point Goldman Sachs started buying these mortgages up cheaply, and unbeknownst to anyone else, cut them up and repackaged them into 'mortgage backed securities' that they claimed were AAA rated and sold for top dollar (sure any number of mortgages would be repossessed, but as long as property values were going up it was ok.  And each security contained only a small percentage from any single mortgage)

And all the while AIG was selling SWAPS (a form of insurance on the value of financial holdings) to anyone who wanted one, whether they owned the underlying security or not.  Again, great business when everything is going up.

At some point in some regions of the country housing values began to stagnate, the Goldman securities started taking hits and were exposed, and market confidence in ALL monetary instruments collapsed - the entire market froze, no one would buy and no one could sell what they had.  And AIG couldn't pay off the claims on the SWAPS they sold when the values of those underlying assets collapsed.


Do I have this wrong?  Could you tell me exactly where and how 'the bankers looted the world economy'?  Other than Goldman Sachs and their greed?  In addition to Goldman and their mortgage securities scandal (which for some reason Eric Holder stated there would be no prosecutions for), AIG - who should not have been selling SWAPS to anyone who didn't hold the underlying security (which is still going on under Obama), and those banks who took the bailout money and turned around and gave their executives their usual 'bonuses' (which were outrageous, but were a pittance in the overall scheme of things)?


And the second question is what does any of that have to do with the Conservatives?  Maybe Bush II and his regulatory team should have been more diligent, but I'm not sure how they were supposed to know what Goldman was up to.  I don't remember anyone else saying AIG shouldn't be selling SWAPS (and again, notice this is still ongoing under the current regime). 

But even if they 'should' have 'done something', they weren't Conservatives.  Conservatives don't start unnecessary wars, and they certainly don't run up deficits by expanding government.

[PB the Deplorable]

...  i stood here in my office one day arguing with the american born and privileged 18 year old son of a wealthy surgeon who thinks sharia law is the best possible legal system.  he has no idea how different his life would be under sharia law, and probably thinks the same prosperity would exist for him only with some kind of islamic utopia on top of it all...

Too bad you didn't point out some infraction of Sharia, and saw off his head

[PB the Deplorable]

... starting the two most expensive-to-wage wars in history...

Not when measured in US soldiers lives lost.

By the way - until Bush II, which wars of any length began while a Republican, Conservative or otherwise, was in office?

[MV/Liberace!]

Too bad you didn't point out some infraction of Sharia, and saw off his head

the funny thing is, a few nights prior to this argument with this fucking islamo-zombie dummy, i saw him in a restaurant at a big table with a few other guys and a whole bunch of girls.  yeah.  because that would be allowed under sharia.

[Gd5150]

You've mentioned a couple of things several times, and I've meant to ask you about them but never have.

My understanding of the economic collapse of 2008 is that the underlying problem was and is the level of debt.  US government debt, foreign government debt, corporate debt, household debt.  Anything could have triggered a recession due to this at anytime, given the right spark.

Going back to the 90s it was determined that the reason poor people couldn't get a mortgage was due to 'racism', and thus the sub-prime loan was born.  At some point Goldman Sachs started buying these mortgages up cheaply, and unbeknownst to anyone else, cut them up and repackaged them into 'mortgage backed securities' that they claimed were AAA rated and sold for top dollar (sure any number of mortgages would be repossessed, but as long as property values were going up it was ok.  And each security contained only a small percentage from any single mortgage)

And all the while AIG was selling SWAPS (a form of insurance on the value of financial holdings) to anyone who wanted one, whether they owned the underlying security or not.  Again, great business when everything is going up.

At some point in some regions of the country housing values began to stagnate, the Goldman securities started taking hits and were exposed, and market confidence in ALL monetary instruments collapsed - the entire market froze, no one would buy and no one could sell what they had.  And AIG couldn't pay off the claims on the SWAPS they sold when the values of those underlying assets collapsed.


Do I have this wrong?  Could you tell me exactly where and how 'the bankers looted the world economy'?  Other than Goldman Sachs and their greed?  In addition to Goldman and their mortgage securities scandal (which for some reason Eric Holder stated there would be no prosecutions for), AIG - who should not have been selling SWAPS to anyone who didn't hold the underlying security (which is still going on under Obama), and those banks who took the bailout money and turned around and gave their executives their usual 'bonuses' (which are a pittance in the overall scheme of things)?


And the second question is what does any of that have to do with the Conservatives?  Maybe Bush II and his regulatory team should have been more diligent, but I'm not sure how they were supposed to know what Goldman was up to.  I don't remember anyone else saying AIG shouldn't be selling SWAPS (and again, notice this is still ongoing under the current regime). 

But even if they 'should' have 'done something', they weren't Conservatives.  Conservatives don't start unnecessary wars, and they certainly don't run up deficits by expanding government.

It was called the CRA Community Reinvestment Act. It was actually started under Carter.

The mortgage collapse was due to a number of factors. Mainly lowering the requirements needed to get approved for a home loan. In the late 90s you could get a Fannymae/Freddie mac conforming loan (under 220k) if you put down at least 20% down payment and had good credit. When the Clinton stock market collapse happened in 2000, everyone moved their money to real-estate. Demand went up, so prices went through the roof. Government continued to lower requirements, and banks were fine with it because if they foreclosed on properties they were making 30% a year in gains on property value.

By 2005 getting the same Fannymae/Freddie loans were a joke. You could do 100% loan-to-value with crap credit and stated income. Basically anyone could get a loan because the prices were going up so fast it made no difference if the property foreclosed, the banks made money. The government made money in higher property taxes. Everyone was happy. But anyone within 1000mi of the mortgage industry knew the collapse was inevitable, the size was much worse than anyone expected.

Problem is the national interest rates started going back up because the economy was doing well since the 2000 stock market crash and 911. Housing prices had tripled, but peoples incomes were the same. So suddenly there were no buyers. The market tanked. By mid 2006 the party was over.

Unfortunately for liberals these things are too complex to understand. They need things to be simple like Bush was president its his fault. Or Obama is president, so its Bush's fault.

[VtaGeezer]

You've mentioned a couple of things several times, and I've meant to ask you about them but never have.

My understanding of the economic collapse of 2008 is that the underlying problem was and is the level of debt. 

Then you have no understanding of the 2008 collapse whatsoever and are so lost in the ideological wasteland that wouldn't believe your mother if she explained it.  It was the result of banks getting the conservatives to change the rules so they could gamble with people's and institutions' deposits on financial devices that the Nevada Gaming Commission wouldn't allow in a casino.  Trillions in paper assets held by the largest banks in the world were vaporized almost overnight, as were many of those banks. Ceased to exist.  So either the Fed had to cover the losses or we could go to the free market solution...Mad Max World.  Few have any idea how close we came to that. I'm not going to try to explain the banking system or economics on a web forum.  Its clear you have no grasp of the real world beyond what the far right media spoon feeds to you.

[PB the Deplorable]

Then you have no understanding of the 2008 collapse whatsoever...  Trillions in paper assets held by the largest banks in the world were vaporized almost overnight, as were many of those banks. Ceased to exist...

Assets, any assets, are worth what someone else will pay for them.

Stocks, real estate, other securities are bid up when times are good, there is less demand for them when times aren't so good, so the price drops.  When very few are buying, prices fall off a cliff.

For example a stock that was selling for, say, $100 one day could very well collapse in price the next day if for whatever reason there are tons of people trying to sell and few buyers.  The stock doesn't disappear.  Neither does the business or it's assets.  The company itself doesn't disappear.  But a ton of unrealized value has 'disappeared'.  The lost value didn't go anywhere.  No one 'took' it. 

No one is saying there aren't a bunch of greedy crooks on Wall St.  Unfortunately our politicians have near zero understanding of how financial markets work, yet have plenty of power over them.  Yes, there were financial shenagans at places like Goldman, and yes - both - parties over the years changed rules for their lobbyist buddies.  They've stolen far less than what you claim.  And that's not what kicked off the collapse. 

By the way, if you want theft, waste, fraud, and damage to our economic system, Big Government is far and away the worst abuser, not comparatively penny ante Wall St crooks.

If you don't understand any of this, then you are way out of your depth.  You ought to run for office as a Democrat, you'd fit right in.  And again, why is it Holder and Obama let Goldman - the worst of them - completely off the hook (and oh please don't tell me that was 'the Conservatives' fault)?


In fact I'm still waiting for an explanation of how 'the Conservatives' were involved in any of it

[PB the Deplorable]

... Unfortunately for liberals these things are too complex to understand. They need things to be simple like Bush was president its his fault. Or Obama is president, so its Bush's fault.

That's about the beginning and end of it, except you left out the smug arrogance they display along with their ignorance

[136 or 142]

Do you really think we can borrow money at the levels we have been over the past two administrations (Bush II doubled the National Debt from around $5.5 Trillion to around $11 Trillion, and under Obama it's now over $18 Trillion), print more under QE I, II, III, create a new 'entitlement' (ObamaCare), import more and more poor unskilled people and make them eligible for all the benefits of our welfare system, continue to ignore the ever growing unfunded future liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, federal pensions, and now ObamaCare) that is now estimated at somewhere north of $100 Trillion - and that's just federal (not to mention the various states, cities, counties, water/fire/school/parks/etc districts that are in the same boat) - do you really think we are going to escape economic disaster?

If you do, could you be so kind to explain how, because some of us are a bit concerned

It's hard to know how serious things are.  If I wanted to be political I could of course point out that it was your guy the big Dick who said "deficits don't matter." (Although he may have simply meant there were no electoral consequences to running big deficits.)  As we saw in Greece, countries tend to go along fine until the debt ceiling hits all at once.  That said, the United States has a far more robust economy and a far greater ability to finance its debt than Greece ever had.

In regards to your specifics:

1.QE1, QE2 and QE3 are Federal Reserve printed money and don't add to the debt (and despite what you wrote earlier, they don't reduce the debt/deficit either).

2.According to the CBO and other agencies, 'Obamacare' is reducing medical costs, not raising them.

3."Importing more and more unskilled immigrants who go on welfare" The same immigrants who are taking American citizens' jobs I guess.

4.Unfunded future liabilities.  This is the biggest fraud of an argument there ever was, other than social security which was supposed to be paid through a trust fund, all of the programs you mentioned were expected to be financed through the tax system of that given year.  If you go out far enough into the future, the 'unfunded future liabiliites' become billions of trillions!  I would assume they'll naturally be paid with future taxes.

[136 or 142]

It was called the CRA Community Reinvestment Act. It was actually started under Carter.

The mortgage collapse was due to a number of factors. Mainly lowering the requirements needed to get approved for a home loan. In the late 90s you could get a Fannymae/Freddie mac conforming loan (under 220k) if you put down at least 20% down payment and had good credit. When the Clinton stock market collapse happened in 2000, everyone moved their money to real-estate. Demand went up, so prices went through the roof. Government continued to lower requirements, and banks were fine with it because if they foreclosed on properties they were making 30% a year in gains on property value.

By 2005 getting the same Fannymae/Freddie loans were a joke. You could do 100% loan-to-value with crap credit and stated income. Basically anyone could get a loan because the prices were going up so fast it made no difference if the property foreclosed, the banks made money. The government made money in higher property taxes. Everyone was happy. But anyone within 1000mi of the mortgage industry knew the collapse was inevitable, the size was much worse than anyone expected.

Problem is the national interest rates started going back up because the economy was doing well since the 2000 stock market crash and 911. Housing prices had tripled, but peoples incomes were the same. So suddenly there were no buyers. The market tanked. By mid 2006 the party was over.

I'm amazed.  What the troll said is largely correct except he left out that interest rates also started to rise because of the sharp increase in oil prices.

[136 or 142]

After wrecking California first - then Oregon and Washington.

I have no idea what you are ranting about.  Though California's population isn't growing at the rate it once was, it is still growing quite quickly.  Much of the state, especially most of the central and northern parts of the state are some of the nicest places in the world to live.  Oakland and parts of Los Angeles were rat holes even before the time Saint Ronnie was governor of the state.

Washington State has one of the fastest growing economies in the country - and possibly the fastest excluding the states that didn't benefit from the oil/fracking boom.  It is also ranked as one of the best places in the world to live and the state government is regarded as one of the best in the country.  It's also one of the 10 fastest growing states by population.

I'm not as familiar with the economy of Oregon, but much of it is also one of the best places in the world to live.

[PB the Deplorable]

... In regards to your specifics:

1.QE1, QE2 and QE3 are Federal Reserve printed money and don't add to the debt (and despite what you wrote earlier, they don't reduce the debt/deficit either)...

I meant it added to the money supply

[NowhereInTime]

Again - those are your opinions.

No, they are substantiated, citable fact.

And what your boss did is statistically irrelevant.

No, its anecdotal evidence of what is really happening with Obamacare, not the conservative myth of massive job losses.

I have read plenty of reports about employers cutting hours so that they can avoid Obamacare.

Some, but very few. In fact many employers are able to hire in now because they don't have to factor in a benefit like health care.

I also know that normally we deal with unemployment by getting people to work, in the US they are actively pushed out of the work force by living of various government benefits.

Now you are buying into conservative myth.  This is rare and only happens in third world places like Alabama, Mississippi, and Detroit, where the American economy has abandoned the workforce for even cheaper labor overseas.

If they don't look for a job, they are not unemployed.

Yet the reason we cannot reach "full employment" with an average of 250,000 + jobs created per month right now is precisely because so many people are coming back into the job search.

You are obviously a conservative and share the conservatives' misanthropic view of people as shiftless lazy schemers looking for freebies rather than people who seek the productive dignity of work.

That's why I discount so much of what you say.

Furthermore, you have people working multiple part-time jobs, all of them count into the statistics. Also the jobs structure is not looking good for the US economy, you guys are creating plenty of low-paying, low-skill jobs. Sure, the unemployment number itself looks better. One can also increase the definition of obesity by 40 pounds, it surely won't decrease the number of obese people by itself. I'm not saying the US economy is not improving, I just see a lot of books being cooked.

And whose fault is that?  The reality is that there is still a large pool of lower educated workers who do not organize and bargain collectively.  They are easily preyed upon by B-Schoolers who use fear to connive them into accepting a pitiful wage, no benefits, and expect open to close availability so many can't even get that second job.

In 2008 just before the financial crash Paul Krugman among others was saying that everything is cool and there is nothing to worry about, we can print all of the money we want and go all Falkie on some plasma TVs.

Wow, here you are just wrong:

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html

And that's just the first one on a cursory glance.  Your facts are wrong. Again.

He sure is saying the same things now.

Clearly you are not reading Paul Krugman.

And I actually think we will have a crash because of currency debasing.

You mean the same dollar trading at 12 year highs right now?!?  The same dollar that, as of this writing is $1.05 to the Euro and gaining ?!?

The issue is that the financial markets have created so many manipulations financial instruments that suck in all this printed money. All of it goes to buy options, insurances of options, insurances of insurances, insurances of options for insurances etc. This can only go on if you assume that this pit has an infinite capacity, which I don't believe. On top of that the dollar is the world's reserve currency, so China is eager to sell you a TV to get some dollars and stockpile them. At some point all this money will unleash and will be used to buy some hard assets, this is I am afraid in longer term inevitable.

This presumes that there is a constant negative gradation to economic activity; the push to finally move minimum wages higher will help reduce government entitlement spending and allow capital to move into economic activity instead being held in reserve by the wealthy.  Also, you presume the belief that shiny metals still somehow "back" currency; this is another conservative pollyannish fantasy that limits currency to a specific, predetermined allocation and not to the creation of real goods and services from our resources.  Folly.

Also - why did we have QE2? Because QE1 didn't work. Why did we have QE3? Because QE2 didn't work. According to all financial pundits who now are cheering a great success the QE1 + the first great stimulus should have been enough.

Actually, no.  Since you seem to presume to know Krugman, you would know that, in fact, he decried the stimulus as insufficient.  Quantitative easing has helped reinvigorate our economy while you European debt-minders self-flagellate in stagnation. Good luck with that.

I don't know about opinion of other people that you consider racists. Forgive me but I might be having some problems really valuing your opinion on that matter.

Really?  Do tell.

The first of your posts in this topic that I read started with calling the 47 senators racist because they signed a letter,

Then you didn't read the first post, which had nothing to do with racism but expressed outrage at the arrogance of these conservative pigs presuming so much as to interfere with world affairs without even knowing the full context of the negotiations!

... which reminds me only of the House of Cards season 3 presidential debate and the 'sexism' accusations by Jackie Sharp. Is Tim Scott also racist?

Yeah, I don't watch House of Cards.  But interacting with you reminds me of Hogan's Heroes because, well, you know...

[NowhereInTime]

We're on our way to becoming a third world shithole ourselves.

Yes, horrid income inequality, the degradation of public education, the abandonment of science, crumbling infrastructure; you guys have done a great fucking job!  Hey, as long as you got your tax cuts...

Somewhere down the line our kids and grandkids are going to ask why we threw it all away.  I guess we'll tell them we were being 'compassionate' and 'politically correct'

So, lie to your kids and grand kids too?  Why don't you man up and tell them that it was all about ringing the register and saying,  "Fuck the future; who cares in you have to swim around Miami - I won't be around to see it!"

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes, horrid income inequality, the degradation of public education, the abandonment of science, crumbling infrastructure; you guys have done a great fucking job!  Hey, as long as you got your tax cuts...

Income equality?  Glad you agree this has been quite the shitty 'recovery the past 6 years

Degradation of public education?  You're right, we need to wrestle it away from the Democrats and their teacher union masters and return it to the parents and teachers

Abandonment of science?  Don't you mean the polarization of science in order to gin up support for the long term goal of deindustrialization?

Crumbling infrastructure?  Mostly in the large metropolitan areas.  Which have been controlled by Libs, now 'Progressives' for decades

Tax cuts?  In my state Federal income tax rates top out near 40%, state income taxes top out at around 10%, sales taxes are another 10%, property taxes are massive.  Every business pays payroll taxes, sales taxes, business property taxes on property, equipment, and supplies.  Gas tax, vehicle tax, tolls.  I'm certain their are more nuisance taxes I'm not thinking of, and more on the way as soon as they can be thought up. 

In every item a person buys, every service, every company involved - from producing the raw materials to manufacturing the item to transporting it to the distributor and the retailer, every tax - and the cost of all the people they pay to figure their taxes - is passed along to the buyer as part of the cost of the product

The D's are big on talk of 'greed'.  This is greed.  And a thirst for power.  Yes, under the guise of 'compassion'

Then when we die, the greedy Big Government supporters want what's left, whatever we've managed to cobble together after supporting ourselves and our families, being taxes at rates that amount to theft, and having much of what we've earned and saved over a lifetime stolen by government caused inflation.

And it's not enough.  It's never enough, and it's never going to be enough.  They borrow more, spend more, waste more.  There is no thought given to spending precious tax dollars wisely.  None.  This is not sustainable, and it's not a 'revenue' (what the govt calls taxes they collect) problem.

Oh some 'tax cuts' somewhere along the line have doomed us.  Jesus

[NowhereInTime]

Assets, any assets, are worth what someone else will pay for them.

Right, which is why you gold hoarders are fools; we will never go back to the gold standard when value can be found in so many other objects, properties, and applications.

Stocks, real estate, other securities are bid up when times are good, there is less demand for them when times aren't so good, so the price drops.  When very few are buying, prices fall off a cliff.

For example a stock that was selling for, say, $100 one day could very well collapse in price the next day if for whatever reason there are tons of people trying to sell and few buyers.  The stock doesn't disappear.  Neither does the business or it's assets.  The company itself doesn't disappear.  But a ton of unrealized value has 'disappeared'.  The lost value didn't go anywhere.  No one 'took' it.

Yeah, but chances are real good someone manipulated it to a short position to take profits on the decline.  The problem is these days that stocks are always trading on anticipated news, not real earnings, and when someone skews the information to alter price, a revaluation has to occur.  the problem is that people panic during a downward movement without understanding the fundamentals and sell so, in essence, someone did "take it".

No one is saying there aren't a bunch of greedy crooks on Wall St.  Unfortunately our politicians have near zero understanding of how financial markets work, yet have plenty of power over them.  Yes, there were financial shenagans at places like Goldman, and yes - both - parties over the years changed rules for their lobbyist buddies.  They've stolen far less than what you claim.  And that's not what kicked off the collapse.

That's not entirely correct.  While it was precisely the fact that conservative former Congressman Christopher Cox had absolutely no idea (nor any interest in knowing) about the liabilities built up by so many investment houses, it was also true that there was little he could have done to mitigate it.  The reforms needed to control risk aren't even on the books today (Dodd-Frank scratches the surface), let alone in 2007 and 2008 when the collapse happened.   

There were "shenanigans" at far more than Goldman; Bear Stearns and Lehman both died horrible deaths, Morgan Stanley nearly drowned; Bank of America had to rescue Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan Chase was forced to swallow down WaMu.  The CDO casino nearly wiped out our financial sector and would've taken the banking system (deregulated to allow investment banking thanks to conservative icon Phil Gramm and conservative puppet Bubba Clinton repeal of Glass-Steagall) with it without TARP.  You guys really damn near did it.

By the way, if you want theft, waste, fraud, and damage to our economic system, Big Government is far and away the worst abuser, not comparatively penny ante Wall St crooks.

So not true.  The amount of damage done to this economy and this nation through Wall Street demands for cost controls (resulting in mass layoffs and outsourcing); immediate profit taking (resulting in businesses being broken up or liquidated); irresponsible investment (offering mortgages like halloween candy and counterparty trading them); evasion of due diligence (Madoff) have caused huge craters that minor government malfeasance could never match.

you don't understand any of this, then you are way out of your depth.

You have proven time and again you either a) don't understand a damn thing about how the economic collapse happened or b) are willfully ignoring it to serve your narrative.

You ought to run for office as a Democrat, you'd fit right in.

Vote Elizabeth Warren/ Jim Webb in 2016!

And again, why is it Holder and Obama let Goldman - the worst of them - completely off the hook (and oh please don't tell me that was 'the Conservatives' fault)?

Goldman didn't do anything illegal.  Obama fumed about it but no one in Justice could make a legal case against Goldman, Bear, or Lehmann for malfeasance because (wait for it) the conservatives have opposed any and all legislation to regulate the casino.  So, yes, it was the conservatives and their laissez-faire, invisible hand bullshit approach that let this horse out of the barn.

In fact I'm still waiting for an explanation of how 'the Conservatives' were involved in any of it

The most obvious was the repeal of Glass-Steagall (with Bubba Clinton's complicity) which allowed deposit banks to compete with investment banks to issue mortgages back securities , CDO's, default swaps, and other derivative product not germane to the original mission of the depositor bank.

The second was the continued obstruction of the SEC by conservative legislators and the Bush Administration.  Fewer SEC violations were enforced by the W. people than at any time since the 80's.  Christopher Cox was a spectator to the Wild West of counterparty madness that nearly consumed the sector.

The third was that so many of these Republican lawmakers were at the trough:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/06/land_deal_gives/

House Speaker (and Drew Carey clone) Hastert was involved in arranging his own land deal through Congress that he made a killing on.  This is but one of dozens of examples of conservative malfeasance with the economy. 

Deregulation nearly destroyed us yet conservatives even now oppose clamping down on the Rodeo:

http://time.com/3628485/government-funding-dodd-frank/

Conservatives' fingerprints and complicity are all over this mess.  Own it.

[VtaGeezer]

Conservatives must blame the 08 Crash on things that happened anywhere from 10 to 30 years earlier or, they fear, they'll lose their minds.  Perhaps they have a traumatic block on their responsibility for running the country between 1/01 and 1/09, and effectively controlling the Congress too from 1994 until 2006. To conservatives, they are blameless for Teflon Pres II; 9/11 wasn't their fault; the non-response to Katrina wasn't their fault, the escape of Bin Laden wasn't their fault, the phonied up war with Iraq wasn't their fault, and certainly the economic collapse of 2008 wasn't their fault.  It was Jimmy Carter's fault, or Bill Clinton's. They refuse to admit that we had a conservative President for a full seven years before The Crash, most of it with a conservative Congress behind him; ample time to fix whatever wrongs the liberals had earlier set in motion.  Especially since they fielded a strongly pro-business economic squad.  We'll ignore that his first SecTreas quit, citing Bush's rejection of his warnings and general disinterest in anything but invading Iraq.  But he was replaced by Hank Paulson, brilliant CEO of Goldman Sachs, who suddenly gave up his $38M/yr gig to serve America; his first public service he worked for Nixon. You bet, Hank. Now the conservative zealots had put one of the architects of the subprime melt down at the helm. But its not their fault. 

So what happened with such a financial genius advising the conservative WH?  Nada. Full speed ahead. The conservative WH did nothing but continue to unlock the doors and windows for the coming looting orgy.  Paulson, who knew exactly what was ahead, sat on his hands when Lehman failed, constantly played down the mounting bow wave in the investment banks. "The economy is fine."  "The worst is behind us." When the crash came, he wrote the conservative bail-out bill that left the too-big-to-fail felon banks, like Goldman, intact, prohibited going after the executive thieves, and insured that AIG debtor banks got 1:1 on their swaps...from the tax payers.

So in January, Obama inherits a vast smoking economic crater that was wholly orchestrated and preventable by conservatives drunk on their free-market fantasy...and guess who they blame.

[136 or 142]

I meant it added to the money supply

And what was your point of that?

[136 or 142]

"If they don't look for a job, they are not unemployed.

Yet the reason we cannot reach "full employment" with an average of 250,000 + jobs created per month right now is precisely because so many people are coming back into the job search."

I assume the original poster was referring to the BLS view that only those actively looking for work are counted as part of the labor force and as unemployed.

[136 or 142]

"The most obvious was the repeal of Glass-Steagall (with Bubba Clinton's complicity) which allowed deposit banks to compete with investment banks to issue mortgages back securities , CDO's, default swaps, and other derivative product not germane to the original mission of the depositor bank.

The second was the continued obstruction of the SEC by conservative legislators and the Bush Administration.  Fewer SEC violations were enforced by the W. people than at any time since the 80's.  Christopher Cox was a spectator to the Wild West of counterparty madness that nearly consumed the sector. "

You left out the role the idiot, and Ayn Rand devotee, but I repeat myself, Alan Greenspan played in the economic collapse by testifying that bankers would never succumb to personal greed because they would be too interested in their employers remaining ongoing concerns.