Banks suck and sh*t is f**ked up bs

[CanadaEQ Eh?]

However, I would argue that the indirect bailouts like that GSE 900 billion and artificially low interest rates could be called bailouts for WS.

really? why?

I too would like to know the answer to this. CEQ, do you mean to say that banks profit from low interest rates?

I was under the impression that the low interest rates were supposed to increase lending but that the banks were just taking the money and buying treasuries.  Basically make some decent risk free coin on the spread while keeping lending tight. 

[Skars the Everposting]

We are so post modern bro.

[Agrulberry the Erudite]

Oh -- I didn't even realize there was something in there about low interest rates; I certainly agree about that. I was asking why / how you think the GSE bailouts could be considered Wallstreet bailouts.

[Grandasaur of the Egg]

This poll shows that most people want higher taxes, again.  Thanks for the backup.



This poll asks a leading question: Do you think that the government should redistribute wealth by heavily taxing the rich?  "Redistributing wealth" has negative connotations.  However, when you ask people an unbiased question with actual specifics, like "Should we increase taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year," the majority of people say yes.  I don't have to find any statistics because I already posted them.



In that poll, more independents want to raise taxes to fix the problem than cut the programs.

So basically nothing you posted does anything to help you and in fact boosts my points.

I have a question for you bro: you retarded?

[Vlaara the Brown]

entitlement also has negative connotations with it.

[Skars the Everposting]

helping the poor vs handouts for welfare queens

[Gildis the Golden]

Occupy Pensacola, eye witness report:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=196033

It's a group of very *****ed-off ordinary citizens who ... know damn well they got serially screwed, but they're not sure exactly how. 

[Renics Other Gimmick Ac]

Wow, reading the news and it seems this movement is growing. I would like all my negative comments redacted so when you commies take over I won't be sent to some gulag.

[Sear, Just Sear]

This poll shows that most people want higher taxes, again.  Thanks for the backup.

Of National Adults:

48% answered with "only" or "mostly" spending cuts
11% answered with "only" or "mostly" tax increases
37% answered equally between the two

This is a 1 to 5 scale question. The Republican, Total Average, and Independent lean are all much stronger towards spending cuts over tax increases.

You ask me if I'm retarded yet fail at grasping something a child could read. Math coursework, bro.

This poll asks a leading question: Do you think that the government should redistribute wealth by heavily taxing the rich?  "Redistributing wealth" has negative connotations.  However, when you ask people an unbiased question with actual specifics, like "Should we increase taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year," the majority of people say yes.  I don't have to find any statistics because I already posted them.

Really grasping for straws here -- "redistributing wealth" has negative connotations? Right... that sure is a convenient dismissal.

In that poll, more independents want to raise taxes to fix the problem than cut the programs.

And the overwhelming majority of every group agrees that the cost of programs will create major economic problems. Supporting the current state of social security and medicare does constitute a very-far-left stance on that set of issues.

You carefully worded it so that you leave yourself open to what I guess would be "minor fixes", but I've read your posts here where you back them. Libby McLiberalson.

So basically nothing you posted does anything to help you and in fact boosts my points.

I have a question for you bro: you retarded?

Right. Well, it's good to have the left side doppelganger of Quintain here alive and well. And I thought Sumi was a handful, back in the day.

What am I, Grandasaur? Am I an OLD BOOTSTRAPS CONSERVATIVE? A moderate young republican? Gosh, I'm going to be so angry at whatever ur response is.   

[Skars the Everposting]

Searyx you should know that the phrasing of a question is very important the language used affects the responses, you shouldn't mock that.

[Sear, Just Sear]

Then of course the phrasing of the question for anything I post will be wrong or have "negative connotations". I can do the same with anything he posts.


Which is Exhibit A of why politics debate is fucking retarded.

[Grandasaur of the Egg]

Then of course the phrasing of the question for anything I post will be wrong or have "negative connotations". I can do the same with anything he posts.


Which is Exhibit A of why politics debate is fucking retarded.

don't be a fucking idiot searyx.  i know it's fun for you to retreat into your "nobody knows" shell but, bro, telling yourself that doesn't make it true.

[Jackpanel]

Why does the Gallup poll only offer mixes of spending cuts and tax increases as the way to cure the deficit?  Hasn't the Republican strategy for the past decade been that lower taxes will solve the deficit problem?

[Skars the Everposting]

Then of course the phrasing of the question for anything I post will be wrong or have "negative connotations". I can do the same with anything he posts.


Which is Exhibit A of why politics debate is fucking retarded.

First point: it doesnt invalidate stuff but its something to consider

2nd point: agreed.

[Ageless the Drifter]

If you assume that everyone you argue with will argue in bad faith, of course it's retarded.

[Ageless the Drifter]

Like I don't understand how "that argument could be used in this other hypothetical context where it would be inappropriate" negates an argument's use in a legitimate context.

[Ageless the Drifter]

[Skars the Everposting]

If you assume that everyone you argue with will argue in bad faith, of course it's retarded.

this is the internet.

[Utumnoberry the Berry Big]

Also for the LOL hippies crowd, take a second look at Gildis' link.

Now I'm no huge fan of Karl D. (I actually agree with lots of stuff he says but he is so over-the-top and consistently negative that I have a hard time taking him seriously)  But I'll see he is more consistently true to what the Tea Party *says* they were about than almost any other big name Tea Party rep out there (almost all of which have devolved into various degrees of how-backwards-can-we-get angry rhetoric).

And Karl D. seems pretty excited about OWS, and in that link specifically refutes the claim that this is just a bunch of latte-sipping hippies as the mainstream media loves to portray:  http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=196033

Good job Karl, thanks for not being a complete nutjob.

[SkafflocTZ]

[Agrulberry the Erudite]

judging from CEQ's table linked in a prior thread that graphic seems rather misleading; 14.7T may have been the maximum funds at risk in bailing out wallstreet but it's vastly larger than what we might expect not to be repaid

[Jackpanel]

Most people in the Tea Party are stupid.
Most people that bitch about the Tea Party are stupid.
Most people in OWS are stupid.
Most people that bitch about OWS are stupid.

Both movements grew because of genuine problems with the way the U.S. goverment works, even if most participants didn't really understand what they were protesting.  Tea Party has been successful so far at bringing changes to the way things are done.  OWS may have the same effect. 

Both groups could probably find some common ground to reduce the level of power that corporations and special interest lobbies hold in the current system.

[Skars the Everposting]

basically america is a bad country

[Klerick the Cleric]

basically america is a bad country

[Klerick the Cleric]

it starts with the white and works down to the brown.

[Skars the Everposting]

Full of bad.

[Gildis the Golden]

I don't seem to be able to make it a direct link, but a good clip:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44935992#44935992

[Immamyst2.0]

Got to love more TBTF shenanigans.


Bank Of America Forces Depositors To Backstop Its $53 Trillion Derivative Book To Prevent A Few Clients From Departing The Bank

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bank-america-forces-depositors-backstop-its-53-trillion-derivative-book-prevent-few-clients-dep?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29

[Gildis the Golden]

Banks 'Livid' at Occupy Wall Street support by Democrats

[Sear, Just Sear]