Is it Over? I think it is....

[Wabbit]

"a lot of truth is said in jest" meaning that the truth is not often told seriously, it is only told in an joking manner or in vain. Anybody with a sense of humor would of known that I wasn't serious.

 

 

 

Gotcha.

I just don't get it when people say "U don't like America" bcause i don't like our situation right now.

I love America, and that's why i care.

Just when u love ya Football team or Baseball team but u don't like Your Coach or a player, and u get mad at them, but doesn't mean u stop loving ya team bcause of it.

Cheers mate.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Wabbit

[LazaHorse]

This is America.

 

We speak American.

 

And if you don't like America...

 

[video=youtube;nT0OqHr3wHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

 

You can giiiit out...

[r3dm0nd]

did a speech on this topic its going to be a diffrent world for all of us in a few years and because our gov doesnt care they are making it worse for us. in 10 years time when we pay around 10 dollars for gas not even accounting for oil prices then we will be screwed

[Chicken Wings]

This thread=mad thread. Inb4 Canadian posts whats an economy

[Toxygen]

Quit living in fear, China is good people.

[Bearthug]

Lazarus, tea is good. I love green tea, black tea, grey earl tea, chai tea.

 

Redmond.... Know this. Each and every conversation you have with almost anybody, they will have their biased opinions. No matter who it is. So if your teacher tells you that Obama is a fuck up, it may as well be labeled as personal opinion. Not actual facts. Now dont get me wrong, Obama hasnt made all the best choices for us, but that doesnt mean he doesnt care. But what if he doesnt care? Who knows? No one does but himself. And God, if you believe. Assuming everything isnt always the best way to go.

 

You know what...

 

Drinking a Corona right now... Ice cold, crisp, fresh, with a piece of lemon inside... Relaxin baby....

[Wabbit]

We must recall the nation to its first principles, reinvigorate American constitutionalism, and revive the sturdy virtues required for self-government. We must restore the principles of America's Founders to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits. We must rebuild and unify a robust conservatism around, and in defense of, these core principles, and identify and develop current and future policymakers, opinion-makers, and leaders who understand, articulate, and will promote these principles. In short, our vision, building on the great successes of the modern conservative movement, must now be to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity

[LazaHorse]

We must recall the nation to its first principles, reinvigorate American constitutionalism, and revive the sturdy virtues required for self-government. We must restore the principles of America's Founders to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits. We must rebuild and unify a robust conservatism around, and in defense of, these core principles, and identify and develop current and future policymakers, opinion-makers, and leaders who understand, articulate, and will promote these principles. In short, our vision, building on the great successes of the modern conservative movement, must now be to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity

 

Or do what I'm gonna do. Admit we're fucked and start saving up to move to Korea.

 

 

I'm the one with the abs.

[poison.ivy]

HeLLsGamers, Politics, & Activism:

Serving you since 2005

 

We must recall the nation to its first principles, reinvigorate American constitutionalism, and revive the sturdy virtues required for self-government. We must restore the principles of America's Founders to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits. We must rebuild and unify a robust conservatism around, and in defense of, these core principles, and identify and develop current and future policymakers, opinion-makers, and leaders who understand, articulate, and will promote these principles. In short, our vision, building on the great successes of the modern conservative movement, must now be to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity

You do realize it's 2011, not 1850, right? Same rules don't apply, bro. btw, did you know $7 trillion of the deficit was generated during the Bush Administration?

[Wabbit]

HeLLsGamers, Politics, & Activism:

Serving you since 2005

 

 

You do realize it's 2011, not 1850, right? Same rules don't apply, bro. btw, did you know $7 trillion of the deficit was generated during the Bush Administration?

 

 

mm don't play smart, all i say is "We must recall the nation to its first principles"

Our new principles got us on a 14 trillion debt, the Nation is loosing control of things.

We need to stop and take a look of what was America about,

 

"the government of the people, by the people, for the people,"

today is more like

"The government of the corporations, by the people, for the Corporations"

 

It's gonna be awfully hard to invoke Bush's name on this one.

There is only one party that is not compromising. The Jackass Party.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Wabbit

[poison.ivy]

mm don't play smart, all i say is "We must recall the nation to its first principles"

Our new principles got us on a 14 trillion debt, the Nation is loosing control of things.

We need to stop and take a look of what was America about,

 

"the government of the people, by the people, for the people,"

today is more like

"The government of the corporations, by the people, for the Corporations"

 

$7 trillion of the debt was already there when Bush was elected into office. We were in

a "surplus" because during the Clinton administration we were working on the debt, not

spending. Another $5-7 trillion was added on top during the Bush Administration. We didn't

get fucked cause of our new principles. I'll act smart if I want to, at least I know the difference

between LOSE and LOOSE.

 

 

Don't be trippin' over the Government, they're there for a reason.

 

Edit: BTW, if you're pro war, I would like you to promptly gtfo with this entire thread cause you're just one large contradiction.

Edited August 4, 2011 by poison.ivy

[Wabbit]

$7 trillion of the debt was already there when Bush was elected into office. We were in

a "surplus" because during the Clinton administration we were working on the debt, not

spending. Another $5-7 trillion was added on top during the Bush Administration. We didn't

get fucked cause of our new principles. I'll act smart if I want to, at least I know the difference

between LOSE and LOOSE.

 

 

Don't be trippin' over the Government, they're there for a reason.

 

 

wow

 

 

rly? u praise Bill? lol now i know u r not smart.

 

"It's because most everything he did regarding financial services regulation has come back to haunt us.

If it wasn't apparent before, the former president's handiwork became clear when President Obama announced sweeping financial services reform. The plan's efforts to bring fair dealing to the mortgage markets, rules to the derivative marketplace and restraint to big financial firms underscored the missteps of the second Clinton term.

 

That's because we had weakly regulated markets when Clinton took office. When he left, they were an invitation to lawless dealing where, for the ease of it

During his final three years in office, Clinton created a fertile environment for home-lending charlatans, hiding places for Wall Street swindlers and a regulatory structure that had served the financial marketplace so well for more than six decades.

 

Clinton bashing -- like Bush bashing -- is often a cop out, but he made some critical mistakes when it came to dealing with the financial industry. Three poor decisions stand out.

 

The first was a change in 1997 to the amount of taxes a homeowner had to pay on the sale of his or her home on up to $500,000. This change effectively made buying and selling a home for profit the most compelling investment in America by tax standards. It changed our housing market from one of supply and demand to one of rampant speculation.

 

The second mistake was one of inaction. In 1998, Long-Term Capital Management's use of derivatives and leverage required a massive $3.6 billion hedge fund bailout organized by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. After the fiasco rocked the markets, the administration was on the spot. Would it require tighter regulation of this new form of investment vehicle? Would it rein in the derivatives markets?

 

But perhaps the biggest mistake of the Clinton years regarding Wall Street and the one that rings loudest today was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a 1933 law that effectively split investment banking and brokerages from commercial banks.

 

In the years leading up to the repeal, Wall Street had been grumbling that the law had become an anachronism. Financial technology was sophisticated. We were so much smarter than they were back in 1929 that there was no way a financial services conglomerate could pose a threat to the system, Wall Street experts said. Besides, they argued, it was a good idea for a bank to handle customers' investments and savings as a hedge in the bad times

 

Then, Clinton's Republican successor closed the deal. George W. Bush took the ball into the end zone, and making buying a home easier than spelling FNMA or FICO and removing the last vestiges of capital requirements at U.S. brokerage firms.

 

Ultimately, however, the big bang "the wall torn down between brokers and banks" happened on Clinton's watch.

 

It is against the law to lie on you loan apps. So how then, did all those people buy houses.

 

Well, GW Bush was asleep and the mortgage brokers, realators, lenders and investment banks snuck by him."

 

Remember, NOBODY goes into a bank and ask for a sub prime loan.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Wabbit

[poison.ivy]

wow

 

 

rly? u praise Bill? lol now i know u r not smart.

 

It's because most everything he did regarding financial services regulation has come back to haunt us.

If it wasn't apparent before, the former president's handiwork became clear when President Obama announced sweeping financial services reform. The plan's efforts to bring fair dealing to the mortgage markets, rules to the derivative marketplace and restraint to big financial firms underscored the missteps of the second Clinton term.

 

That's because we had weakly regulated markets when Clinton took office. When he left, they were an invitation to lawless dealing where, for the ease of it

During his final three years in office, Clinton created a fertile environment for home-lending charlatans, hiding places for Wall Street swindlers and a regulatory structure that had served the financial marketplace so well for more than six decades.

 

Clinton bashing -- like Bush bashing -- is often a cop out, but he made some critical mistakes when it came to dealing with the financial industry. Three poor decisions stand out.

 

The first was a change in 1997 to the amount of taxes a homeowner had to pay on the sale of his or her home on up to $500,000. This change effectively made buying and selling a home for profit the most compelling investment in America by tax standards. It changed our housing market from one of supply and demand to one of rampant speculation.

 

The second mistake was one of inaction. In 1998, Long-Term Capital Management's use of derivatives and leverage required a massive $3.6 billion hedge fund bailout organized by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. After the fiasco rocked the markets, the administration was on the spot. Would it require tighter regulation of this new form of investment vehicle? Would it rein in the derivatives markets?

 

But perhaps the biggest mistake of the Clinton years regarding Wall Street and the one that rings loudest today was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a 1933 law that effectively split investment banking and brokerages from commercial banks.

 

In the years leading up to the repeal, Wall Street had been grumbling that the law had become an anachronism. Financial technology was sophisticated. We were so much smarter than they were back in 1929 that there was no way a financial services conglomerate could pose a threat to the system, Wall Street experts said. Besides, they argued, it was a good idea for a bank to handle customers' investments and savings as a hedge in the bad times

 

Then, Clinton's Republican successor closed the deal. George W. Bush took the ball into the end zone, and making buying a home easier than spelling FNMA or FICO and removing the last vestiges of capital requirements at U.S. brokerage firms.

 

Ultimately, however, the big bang "the wall torn down between brokers and banks" happened on Clinton's watch.

 

It is against the law to lie on you loan apps. So how then, did all those people buy houses.

 

Well, GW Bush was asleep and the mortgage brokers, realators, lenders and investment banks snuck by him.

 

Remember, NOBODY goes into a bank and ask for a sub prime loan.

 

I LIKE HOW YOU COPIED YOUR ENTIRE REPLY FROM AN ARTICLE ON MSN. THAT'S HOW I KNOW YOU'RE NOT SMART. GTFO.

PROOF: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/did-clinton-cause-the-banking-crisis.aspx

[LazaHorse]

I foresee intervention by chocolate milk and oatmeal.

[poison.ivy]

[Wabbit]

I LIKE HOW YOU COPIED YOUR ENTIRE REPLY FROM AN ARTICLE ON MSN. THAT'S HOW I KNOW YOU'RE NOT SMART. GTFO.

PROOF: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/did-clinton-cause-the-banking-crisis.aspx

 

mmm so if copy an article makes me less smart,? more like I DO MY RESEARCH B4 Y TALK NONSENSE like you.

 

This Article speaks the truth, and u blind to see it, Blaming always on BUSH, BUSH DID THIS, BUSH BUSH AND BUSH, i rather do some research and open my mind than being mind closed and blame everything on one person like you do.

 

GTFO!

[poison.ivy]

mmm so if copy an article makes me less smart,? more like I DO MY RESEARCH B4 Y TALK NONSENSE like you.

 

This Article speaks the truth, and u blind to see it, Blaming always on BUSH, BUSH DID THIS, BUSH BUSH AND BUSH, i rather do some research and open my mind than being mind closed and blame everything on one person like you do.

 

GTFO!

 

 

sorry i don't talk to 5 year olds.

 

Hold on, let me do some copy pasting instead of forming my own ideas...

 

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/83-83/6767-the-bush-deficit

 

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health

In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/the-bush-deficit-bamboozle/

Can we agree that the deficit in the first quarter of 2009 — Obama didn’t even take office until Jan. 20, the ARRA wasn’t even passed until Feb. 17, and essentially no stimulus funds had been spent — had nothing to do with Obama’s polices, and was entirely a Bush legacy?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-progress-report/the-bush-deficit_b_169475.html

Obama has already made a departure from the Bush budget legacy by instilling new openness and transparency. Last week, the New York Times reported that Obama will not reject "four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller." In 2005, the Washington Post editorial board called Bush's budget proposal a "farce" for using accounting tricks. Obama's changes include accounting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Bush relied on "emergency supplemental" war spending), assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation, accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements, and anticipating inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief.

 

 

oh hi. what?

[LazaHorse]

mmm so if copy an article makes me less smart,? more like I DO MY RESEARCH B4 Y TALK NONSENSE like you.

 

This Article speaks the truth, and u blind to see it, Blaming always on BUSH, BUSH DID THIS, BUSH BUSH AND BUSH, i rather do some research and open my mind than being mind closed and blame everything on one person like you do.

 

GTFO!

 

I heard we're a gaming community. Unless they're coming out with a new version of Risk, the American Survival Edition, I think you should probably cool your jets.

[Wabbit]

sorry i don't talk to 5 year olds.

 

rlly? so y u dating my lil sister then?

[poison.ivy]

rlly? so y u dating my lil sister then?

 

wow, it's nice to see that you have to resort to such classy acts when you can't refute what i have to say.

 

cool bro, cool.

[Wabbit]

o hi! u mean this?

 

 

1. The prepared text begins, “This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want.” I read that and hear, ‘I cannot get the numbers to add up.” Or, perhaps, “It was my understanding there would be no math involved in this debate.”

 

2. There is a lot of blaming Bush in this speech. Quick perspective: Using numbers from the U.S. Treasury, we see that the debt during Bush’s eight years in office increased from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, or $4.9 trillion over eight years. That’s bad; that’s basically $610 billion per year. But in the less than three years Obama has been in office, the debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion, a $3.6 trillion increase in about 27 months. In other words, Obama is increasing the debt by $1.6 trillion per year, three times as fast as Bush.

 

Bush spent 5 trillions in 8 YEARS! Obama 3.6 Trillions in 27 months! LOL

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/264640/obama-spending-three-times-fast-bush-blames-bush

O HI!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!

Edited August 4, 2011 by Wabbit

[poison.ivy]

o hi! u mean this?

 

 

1. The prepared text begins, “This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want.” I read that and hear, ‘I cannot get the numbers to add up.” Or, perhaps, “It was my understanding there would be no math involved in this debate.”

 

2. There is a lot of blaming Bush in this speech. Quick perspective: Using numbers from the U.S. Treasury, we see that the debt during Bush’s eight years in office increased from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, or $4.9 trillion over eight years. That’s bad; that’s basically $610 billion per year. But in the less than three years Obama has been in office, the debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion, a $3.6 trillion increase in about 27 months. In other words, Obama is increasing the debt by $1.6 trillion per year, three times as fast as Bush.

 

Bush spent 5 trillions in 8 YEARS! Obama 3.6 Trillions in 27 months! LOL

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/264640/obama-spending-three-times-fast-bush-blames-bush

O HI!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!

 

 

so you agree that bush had a 5 tril deficit? meaning he did do something wrong.

 

Spending increased every year through 2008. $730 billion of that spending was attributed to military expenditures. That is about 24% of the government spending. It is safe to assume that the war was a significant contributing factor to the massive deficit. The seven years of high war costs are part of the Bush administration, not Obama. This is obviously a significant factor in understanding the countries path to a large federal deficit.

http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/

 

Obama spent approximately $535 billion more year-over-year then Bush’s highest year of spending. Because of the continuing recession and slowed GDP, the deficit increased by a staggering $960 billion in 1 year.

One thing you have to realize is when people horde money due to a recession that we officially hit during 2008 during the Bush Admin., they don't spend, no spending = no jobs, no jobs = less money = cycle = more government spending to subsidize the loss.

 

Rising unemployment and slowed GDP lead to less tax revenue which also increases the federal deficit.

Military expenses are approx %25 of gov't spending.

 

Fiscal policy will need to change at some point, revenues will need to be raised through taxes and jobs, and spending cuts may need to compliment this.

 

My point is...they're doing what they can with what they've been given. Saying I'm wrong makes you look like an idiot. Obama stepped into the shithole that Bush created and it's a cycle now.

[BluHorse]

does it matter? we're all fucked in the end.

[poison.ivy]

does it matter? we're all fucked in the end.

 

this.

 

/thread

[Wabbit]

so you agree that bush had a 5 tril deficit? meaning he did do something wrong.

 

Spending increased every year through 2008. $730 billion of that spending was attributed to military expenditures. That is about 24% of the government spending. It is safe to assume that the war was a significant contributing factor to the massive deficit. The seven years of high war costs are part of the Bush administration, not Obama. This is obviously a significant factor in understanding the countries path to a large federal deficit.

http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/

 

Obama spent approximately $535 billion more year-over-year then Bush’s highest year of spending. Because of the continuing recession and slowed GDP, the deficit increased by a staggering $960 billion in 1 year.

One thing you have to realize is when people horde money due to a recession that we officially hit during 2008 during the Bush Admin., they don't spend, no spending = no jobs, no jobs = less money = cycle = more government spending to subsidize the loss.

 

Rising unemployment and slowed GDP lead to less tax revenue which also increases the federal deficit.

Military expenses are approx %25 of gov't spending.

 

Fiscal policy will need to change at some point, revenues will need to be raised through taxes and jobs, and spending cuts may need to compliment this.

 

My point is...they're doing what they can with what they've been given. Saying I'm wrong makes you look like an idiot. Obama stepped into the shithole that Bush created and it's a cycle now.

 

i never say u r wrong..... i respect ya opinion, i just don't like when people blame Bush for everything, he is not the only person to blame here, this is like a Snow Ball effect, it started long time ago, then each president had to deal with situations, bad calls and good calls, Bush didn't created this " Shithole" Bill for example, he permitted people with low income to get a house when in reality they couldn't afford.

 

Bush had to deal with that and 9/11 then 2 wars.

Obama, well i voted for him, but he is not Cutting anything, instead he is spending more,

he used to say b4 he bcame our president,

"WE R GONNA CUT SPENDING AND SAVE MONEY"

.................. his spending is 3.7 Trillions in 3 years. where is the "CUT"?

Edited August 4, 2011 by Wabbit