THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[f.sciarrillo]

[snip]

The civilian labor force shrank in April by 342,000 workers, and remains below where it stood when the economic recovery started 34 months ago, according to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Had the labor force not declined, unemployment would have been 8.3% in April, instead of the 8.1% reported.

That same month, more than 225,000 workers applied for Social Security disability benefits, and nearly 90,000 were enrolled, according to new data from the Social Security Administration.

[/snip]

Read more: http://news.investors.com/article/61030 ... -grows.htm

It looks like people are having a hard time getting employment, so they are applying for disability to get that guaranteed check every month. It sounds simple enough? I can imagine how high the denial rate will continue to be also. Not to mention the rate of the fraud.

[Don Hughes]

I also seem to remember Bush in 2004 in ads basically questioning what Kerry would have done in the 9-11 aftermath (they showed the ad in a Daily Show episode a few days ago). Frankly, I thought it was a valid question asking what Kerry would have done. Just like it's a valid question what Romney would have done with the Bin Laden thing.

In my UN-educated opinion, Romney now is what Kerry was in 2004.

Also, in another UN-educated opinion, it seems like the last few Presidents have given off an "everyman" type of personality. Clinton was like that, Bush was more of an everyman than Kerry, Obama was more of an everyman than McCain (not all of us can call ourselves war heroes). I'm not saying that Kerry or McCain or Gore would have done better or worse, I'm just saying that they seemed more relatable to the general public. It's just like in pro-wrestling. Hulk Hogan was not someone who could fly around the ring and do 10,237 holds, but he related and connected to the public. As much as people want to make elections about policies and politics, it's just a popularity contest.

[Banned]

Are you saying the Obama is a conservative? That would make more sense if you were. Even though Obama is nowhere near a conservative.

No, we are saying that Bush was not a conservative in any shape or form. He spent more domestically than Clinton, a liberal democrat.

Obama is a socialist who is head puppet for a fascist authoritarian government, like he is told before he goes on vacation.

[lonewolf]

I think $15T isn't even close to GDP, and many people have debt that amounts to more than a year's wages, especially if they buy a house. Those debt numbers include the bills for Medicare Part D, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, loss of revenue caused by the Bush Economic Crisis, and the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich. You can blame Obama, because that's what you're told to do, but again, reality wins in the end. The wing-nut messaging machine is the highest paid on the planet, but it's losing effectiveness due to overuse, and Obama wins easily in November.

The US GDP for 2011 was $15.094 Trillion, or about $600 billion less than the debt which now stands at $15.708 Trillion.

I don't know where you get the idea that GDP is the US government's "wages"

Those are called revenues and are expected to be around $2.3 T this year.

Unfortunately, their propaganda pages list SSI and Medicare in the budget, but if you look at official accounting pages of the CBO, they are not listed because they are technically "off-budget". They just started doing that a few years back.

[songsmith]

Since Obama hasn't changed any policy that Bush passed. .

Untrue. Undoing Cheney/Rove is a slow process with a Do-Nothing Congress under cutting him (Job One, remember), but he does okay.

[songsmith]

No, we are saying that Bush was not a conservative in any shape or form. He spent more domestically than Clinton, a liberal democrat.

"True Scotsman" defense: logical fallacy. When you are confronted with the truth about something, re-define what is truth.
George Bush was, and is, a hard-right social and fiscal conservative. War spending is distinctly conservative, revenue loss from the Bush Tax Cuts is also distinctly conservative. Conservative changes to business oversight resulted in the Bush Financial Crisis. Liberals did not vote for him, Fox-inspired conservatives did, and were told if they didn't, they were not conservative. Twice. It wasn't a fluke. If you voted for George W. Bush, you bear the blame for what he did.
Let me repeat that, because we know who here voted for whom:
If you voted for George Bush or his fellow Republicans, you bear the blame for what they did. period, end paragraph, end of story. You cannot shift blame to liberals, because they were dead in the water after 9/11. Historical re-writes are fun, but reality is reality.

[songsmith]

With all the trips and rounds of golf?

Been noticing all the references to vacations and off-time lately. Doing as the media tells you I suppose. Sit, Lone Wolf! Good boy. Roll over, Lone Wolf. Good BOY!!

Presidents with most vacation time: Reagan, followed by G-Dub.

[songsmith]

What has Obama changed?

Credit Default Swaps

Mortgage Backed Securities

Tax Cuts For The Rich

Healthcare

Defense

.

Okay, readers, in this post, Wolfie conveniently forgets about Wall Street's continued influence on American government, and makes it seem like Obama operates in a power vacuum, and since he's a "fascist dictator," that is the reason little has changed.
All attempts at legislation proposed by the Obama Admin are either killed by Congressional rightwing activists, or watered down by the corporate sponsors who write it. "Job One."

[Banned]

What has Obama changed?

Credit Default Swaps

Mortgage Backed Securities

Tax Cuts For The Rich

Healthcare

Defense

.

Okay, readers, in this post, Wolfie conveniently forgets about Wall Street's continued influence on American government, and makes it seem like Obama operates in a power vacuum, and since he's a "fascist dictator," that is the reason little has changed.
All attempts at legislation proposed by the Obama Admin are either killed by Congressional rightwing activists, or watered down by the corporate sponsors who write it. "Job One."

Corndog conveniently forget that the Kenyan had a democrat majority in both houses for 2 years. He could have attempted anything he wanted in those first 2 years. All he managed to pass was the failed, unconstitutional Porkulus bill and the unconstitutional mandatory health care law, which will declared unconstitutional this summer.

[songsmith]

BTW, if you think the real estate crisis was caused by the government "forcing" banks to give away money, you're not in the minor leagues, you have a baseball patch sewn on the bib of your baby-blue onesie. Blah-blah all you want, nobody believes it.

Only the mayday left-fielders don't believe me. Here ya go T-ball boy:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-phon ... act-2009-6

"The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which opened the door for interstate banking and encouraged a new wave of banking M&A, made the ratings under the CRA a test for determining whether acquisitions would be allowed. That same year, the Fed refused to allow a Hartford, Connecticut bank to acquire a New Hampshire bank on fair housing and CRA grounds.

This was the first time the Fed had ever taken this kind of action, and it had profound effects through the banking sector. It sent a strong signal to the banks that the Fed would closely scrutinize lending practice, limiting the ability of banks to grow or make acquisitions if they were found to have insufficient low income or minority lending. Banks immediately responded by lowering down payment requirements and using more flexible income criteria."

And the law:

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/ru ... -3500.html

"(A) the appropriate Federal banking agency for the out-of-State bank shall review the loan portfolio of the bank and determine whether the bank is reasonably helping to meet the credit needs of the communities served by the bank in the host State; and

(B) if the agency determines that the out-of-State bank is not reasonably helping to meet those needs--

(i) the agency may order that an interstate branch or branches of such bank in the host State be closed unless the bank provides reasonable assurances to the satisfaction of the appropriate Federal banking agency that the bank has an acceptable plan that will reasonably help to meet the credit needs of the communities served by the bank in the host State, and

(ii) the out-of-State bank may not open a new interstate branch in the host State unless the bank provides reasonable assurances to the satisfaction of the appropriate Federal banking agency that the bank will reasonably help to meet the credit needs of the community that the new branch will serve."

"(2) CONSIDERATIONS.--In making a determination under paragraph (1)(A), the appropriate Federal banking agency shall consider--

(A) whether the interstate branch or branches of the out-of-State bank were formerly part of a failed or failing depository institution;

(B) whether the interstate branch was acquired under circumstances where there was a low loan-to-deposit ratio because of the nature of the acquired institution's business or loan portfolio;

(C) whether the interstate branch or branches of the out-of-State bank have a higher concentration of commercial or credit card lending, trust services, or other specialized activities;

(D) the ratings received by the out-of-State bank under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977;

Again, readers, Lonewolf attempts to define the argument. When faced with the undeniable truth, that government never forced banks to provide loans to people who could not pay them, our "expert" chose to post statutes that require banks to be solvent enough to provide loans in the community they wish to "serve." No part of his source material purports to force a bank to simply hand out loans willy-nilly, instead, the Business Insider article points out that government reserves the right to restrict bad business practices and bank over-expansion. It also conveniently ignores that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 existed in ... 1977, before the Reagan Admin and both Bushes, yet they never rescinded it. The worldwide banking collapse (brought on by derivatives trading re-allowed in 2000) happened under George W. Bush, in 2008, THIRTY-ONE years after the CRA of 1977.
Just part and parcel of the misinformation and blame-shifting that modern conservatives are exposed to as part of their media indoctrination.
The next thing he posts will be another personal attack, probably at what he perceives to be my lack of financial success. Baby Huey will join in as well, mentioning my wife's income while ignoring their own dubious lack of a successful marriage. At that point, most readers will wonder why they are still reading this garbage, and go look at porn, the way God intended us to use the Interwebs.

[lonewolf]

BTW, if you think the real estate crisis was caused by the government "forcing" banks to give away money, you're not in the minor leagues, you have a baseball patch sewn on the bib of your baby-blue onesie. Blah-blah all you want, nobody believes it.

Only the mayday left-fielders don't believe me. Here ya go T-ball boy:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-phon ... act-2009-6

"The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which opened the door for interstate banking and encouraged a new wave of banking M&A, made the ratings under the CRA a test for determining whether acquisitions would be allowed. That same year, the Fed refused to allow a Hartford, Connecticut bank to acquire a New Hampshire bank on fair housing and CRA grounds.

This was the first time the Fed had ever taken this kind of action, and it had profound effects through the banking sector. It sent a strong signal to the banks that the Fed would closely scrutinize lending practice, limiting the ability of banks to grow or make acquisitions if they were found to have insufficient low income or minority lending. Banks immediately responded by lowering down payment requirements and using more flexible income criteria."

And the law:

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/ru ... -3500.html

"(A) the appropriate Federal banking agency for the out-of-State bank shall review the loan portfolio of the bank and determine whether the bank is reasonably helping to meet the credit needs of the communities served by the bank in the host State; and

(B) if the agency determines that the out-of-State bank is not reasonably helping to meet those needs--

(i) the agency may order that an interstate branch or branches of such bank in the host State be closed unless the bank provides reasonable assurances to the satisfaction of the appropriate Federal banking agency that the bank has an acceptable plan that will reasonably help to meet the credit needs of the communities served by the bank in the host State, and

(ii) the out-of-State bank may not open a new interstate branch in the host State unless the bank provides reasonable assurances to the satisfaction of the appropriate Federal banking agency that the bank will reasonably help to meet the credit needs of the community that the new branch will serve."

"(2) CONSIDERATIONS.--In making a determination under paragraph (1)(A), the appropriate Federal banking agency shall consider--

(A) whether the interstate branch or branches of the out-of-State bank were formerly part of a failed or failing depository institution;

(B) whether the interstate branch was acquired under circumstances where there was a low loan-to-deposit ratio because of the nature of the acquired institution's business or loan portfolio;

(C) whether the interstate branch or branches of the out-of-State bank have a higher concentration of commercial or credit card lending, trust services, or other specialized activities;

(D) the ratings received by the out-of-State bank under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977;

Again, readers, Lonewolf attempts to define the argument. When faced with the undeniable truth, that government never forced banks to provide loans to people who could not pay them, our "expert" chose to post statutes that require banks to be solvent enough to provide loans in the community they wish to "serve." No part of his source material purports to force a bank to simply hand out loans willy-nilly, instead, the Business Insider article points out that government reserves the right to restrict bad business practices and bank over-expansion. It also conveniently ignores that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 existed in ... 1977, before the Reagan Admin and both Bushes, yet they never rescinded it. The worldwide banking collapse (brought on by derivatives trading re-allowed in 2000) happened under George W. Bush, in 2008, THIRTY-ONE years after the CRA of 1977.
Just part and parcel of the misinformation and blame-shifting that modern conservatives are exposed to as part of their media indoctrination.
The next thing he posts will be another personal attack, probably at what he perceives to be my lack of financial success. Baby Huey will join in as well, mentioning my wife's income while ignoring their own dubious lack of a successful marriage. At that point, most readers will wonder why they are still reading this garbage, and go look at porn, the way God intended us to use the Interwebs.

Apparently you didn't comprehend my post or its links completely. The regulation in question is from 1994, not 1977. The original ratings standard was set in 1977, but were only used as a qualifier. The rest? I don't know what you don't understand about this. It seemed so clear, simple and straightforward that anybody with a 3 digit IQ could follow it.

IF YOU DON'T ACHIEVE A HIGH ENOUGH RATING:

(D) the ratings received by the out-of-State bank under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

YOU WILL PAY THIS PENALTY:

(i) the agency may order that an interstate branch or branches of such bank in the host State be closed

OR YOU WILL PAY THIS PENALTY:

(ii) the out-of-State bank may not open a new interstate branch in the host State

What was it that you don't understand?

Perhaps this will help. Its something like the City of Altoona telling you that your band has to play for a block party at a significant discount in the Altoona crack district, and if you don't, you can't play at Pellegrine's.

[Banned]

"Weaker-than-expected US jobs growth hit financial markets and cast a shadow over President Barack Obama’s plans for a formal launch of his re-election campaign this weekend."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8b0853fa-95e6 ... z1u1j6hV4k

[lonewolf]

Since Obama hasn't changed any policy that Bush passed. .

Untrue. Undoing Cheney/Rove is a slow process with a Do-Nothing Congress under cutting him (Job One, remember), but he does okay.

You mean 2 years with a congressional super-majority, don't you?

[f.sciarrillo]

Since Obama hasn't changed any policy that Bush passed. .

Untrue. Undoing Cheney/Rove is a slow process with a Do-Nothing Congress under cutting him (Job One, remember), but he does okay.

You mean 2 years with a congressional super-majority, don't you?

Yeah, he keeps negating that fact.

[f.sciarrillo]

Here is a cause that I think Johnny would love to help out with.

Occupy Angels

"Everyday, helpless occupiers are arrested, and jailed. They are crying out for help. For just $18 a month, only 60 cents a day, you can help rescue occupiers from their police state abusers."

Make sure you have your tissues ready while watching this video. It is a real tear jerker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPIu58Fj ... r_embedded#!

[lonewolf]

Untrue. Undoing Cheney/Rove is a slow process with a Do-Nothing Congress under cutting him (Job One, remember), but he does okay.

You mean 2 years with a congressional super-majority, don't you?

Yeah, he keeps negating that fact.

He's a DNC parrot. They edited those years out of their political history.

[f.sciarrillo]

You mean 2 years with a congressional super-majority, don't you?

Yeah, he keeps negating that fact.

He's a DNC parrot. They edited those years out of their political history.

They edited that out and then some.

[songsmith]

Apparently you didn't comprehend my post or its links completely. The regulation in question is from 1994, not 1977. The original ratings standard was set in 1977, but were only used as a qualifier. The rest? I don't know what you don't understand about this. It seemed so clear, simple and straightforward that anybody with a 3 digit IQ could follow it.

IF YOU DON'T ACHIEVE A HIGH ENOUGH RATING:

(D) the ratings received by the out-of-State bank under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

YOU WILL PAY THIS PENALTY:

(i) the agency may order that an interstate branch or branches of such bank in the host State be closed

OR YOU WILL PAY THIS PENALTY:

(ii) the out-of-State bank may not open a new interstate branch in the host State

What was it that you don't understand?

Perhaps this will help. Its something like the City of Altoona telling you that your band has to play for a block party at a significant discount in the Altoona crack district, and if you don't, you can't play at Pellegrine's.

Thanks for proving you don't understand what you posted. A closer analogy would be if Pellies hired you, then you subbed another band to take your place, then that band hired another band, then another, and when the final band didn't show up, you claim to know nothing of any of it. There is still NO law, statute, or ordinance requiring banks to give loans to people who can't repay it. The practice of credit swaps and their attending derivatives are why banks gave out money, case closed. They issued the loan, collected the fees, then traded the risk off to someone else, that bank did the same, then another, then another, until banking insurance issuers like AIG got them. When the balloon popped, AIG was "too big to fail," and G-Dub and crew bailed them out, with taxpayer money. Post all the lunacy you see fit, it doesn't change anything that happened just a few years ago, that we all saw with our own eyes.
Through all that, when Big Bad O wants to rein in Big Banking, it's the political RIGHT that screams bloody murder, not the libs. It's the pitfall of supporting corporate takeover of gov't: eventually, the elites walk away rich, and YOU pay the bill, getting nothing in return but more work for less pay.

[Banned]

When the balloon popped, AIG was "too big to fail," and G-Dub and crew bailed them out, with taxpayer money.

Corndog conveniently forgets that the Kenyan voted for this as a senator.

[lonewolf]

There is still NO law, statute, or ordinance requiring banks to give loans to people who can't repay it.

Not in simplistic, legally ignorant stumpy words. What they have are a combination of two laws that say that if banks don't meet a certain percentage of sub-prime loans set by bureaucrats, the federal government can close bank branches outside their state of incorporation or keep them from expanding into other states.

The federal government doesn't have the constitutional power to make a law requiring banks to make sub-prime loans, so they use their typical tactic of "either do it our way or you can't have any candy".

Its the same tactic they use on states to require them to use federal policy on what should be state and local policy. For instance, a state must use "No Child Left Behind" or risk losing federal funding for education.

Is that clear enough?

Here...check to see if your bank is doling out enough social justice:

http://hmdanalysis.nyls.edu/

There is no doubt that the emergence of MBS in the mid-1990s was one of the contributing factors to the rise in popularity of subprime loan origination;

however, the federal government, thru these social justice laws and FNMA and FMAC, had more of an impact than any other entity

[f.sciarrillo]

[Banned]

Do they have email in Kenya?

[eightpointish]

Do mormons ?

[Banned]

Do mormons ?

Don't know, but the nation would love it if Ron Paul got his email at the White House. There might actually be an America left after 4 years.

[eightpointish]

Ill vote for Obama, Ron paul etc before I would ever cast a vote for Romney. Hell I may even vote for you before I would vote for Romney.