"Joe the Plumber" speak out!

BadMuther · Post by **BadMuther** » October 16th, 2008, 10:23 am

LINK

Awesome!

KW Driver · Post by **KW Driver** » October 16th, 2008, 11:28 am

BadMuther · Post by **BadMuther** » October 16th, 2008, 11:37 am

Wow, that second link. There are plenty of professions where you operate under someone else's license. Nice liberal media to try and smear his charachter.

That first one had some hateful loonies on there.....

Sleepy Doc · Post by **Sleepy Doc** » October 16th, 2008, 1:10 pm

BadMuther wrote:Wow, that second link. There are plenty of professions where you operate under someone else's license. Nice liberal media to try and smear his charachter.

That first one had some hateful loonies on there.....

Its only a smear if it isn't true..

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » October 16th, 2008, 1:21 pm

The Sleepy Doc wrote:
BadMuther wrote:Wow, that second link. There are plenty of professions where you operate under someone else's license. Nice liberal media to try and smear his charachter.

That first one had some hateful loonies on there.....
Its only a smear if it isn't true..

Your avatar should be the fucking Hammer and sickle.

Sleepy Doc · Post by **Sleepy Doc** » October 16th, 2008, 2:07 pm

Silverback wrote:
The Sleepy Doc wrote:
BadMuther wrote:Wow, that second link. There are plenty of professions where you operate under someone else's license. Nice liberal media to try and smear his charachter.

That first one had some hateful loonies on there.....
Its only a smear if it isn't true..
Your avatar should be the fucking Hammer and sickle.

Why? Because I feel that "laissaiz faire" economics and "trickle down" theory is a crock of shit? Because I don't buy for one fucking second that McCain gives a shit about the middle classes? Because I think he's only going to continue Bush's policies? (and we see how well that worked out.)

Look, I have no problem with smart, rich people running the country. I prefer that to the alternative. But damn, how long can they go on having policies that make them and their friends richer and fuck the little guy? Isn't that what the Bible says too? Help the poor and the downtrodden? If shit goes bad, and the disenfranchised poor get pissed off enough, it will be like the Bolshevik Revolution and blood will run in the streets. That worked out really well for them.

I'm not advocating that everyone put on grey pajamas, carry a copy of "the little red book" and work for the collective. Straight communism is bullshit. You want to make money? Go right ahead and be my guest, but we cant have complete de-regulation. Otherwise we will go right back to the way things were in the late 1800s/early 1900s when most of the government oversight was created in response to poison food, danagerous working conditions, etc. (Kinda like China today only they ignore their regulations..)

I would have voted for McCain in 2000. I wanted to, but after that shit with the SC primary where he just rolled over and played dead, I realized just what he was all about.

[added: Whoever the next president turns out to be, he is being handed a shit sandwich and will have to raise taxes, just like Bush-41 did ]

lusus · Post by **lusus** » October 16th, 2008, 3:59 pm

The Sleepy Doc wrote:
Silverback wrote:
The Sleepy Doc wrote:
>>Because I think he's only going to continue Bush's policies? (and we see how well that worked out.)<<
Blaming the credit crisis on Bush just doesn't make sense. Those seeds were planted long ago.

>>But damn, how long can they go on having policies that make them and their friends richer and fuck the little guy? <<

Specifically which policies fuck the little guy? And don't say 'tax cuts for the rich.' 40% of Americans don't pay Federal taxes at all (and they are about to get welfare checks if Obama wins). If a tax cut occurs (and it stimulates the economy every time it happens) it by definition has to benefit people who aren't poor, because they don't pay taxes in the first place.

Bush 41 caved. The federal budget is approaching $3 Trillion. TRILLION!! No fat there? Nothing can be run more efficiently? No redundant programs? Politicians like raising taxes because money equals power. You are brainwashed if you think the only answer is for the benevolent government to take more of your money. Never forget, its your money.

BadMuther · Post by **BadMuther** » October 16th, 2008, 4:30 pm

The Sleepy Doc wrote:
Silverback wrote:
The Sleepy Doc wrote: Its only a smear if it isn't true..
Your avatar should be the fucking Hammer and sickle.

Why? Because I feel that "laissaiz faire" economics and "trickle down" theory is a crock of shit?

Show me one place in the world where "bottom up" economics has worked.

Obama's economic policies are straight socialism. Which apparently you don't have a problem with. You might not be a dyed in the wool communist, but apparently you take no issues with socialism.

Sleepy Doc · Post by **Sleepy Doc** » October 16th, 2008, 5:11 pm

BadMuther wrote:
The Sleepy Doc wrote:
Silverback wrote: Your avatar should be the fucking Hammer and sickle.

Why? Because I feel that "laissaiz faire" economics and "trickle down" theory is a crock of shit?
Show me one place in the world where "bottom up" economics has worked.

Obama's economic policies are straight socialism. Which apparently you don't have a problem with. You might not be a dyed in the wool communist, but apparently you take no issues with socialism.

Kinda like the government buying stock in major banks? No, that isn't socialist policy at all.

Here is a quote I saw on another site that I think sums it up perfectly.

It's true that the current economic mess was a bipartisan affair -- Democrats participated almost as eagerly as Republicans in the whole deregulation of the financial sector that occurred in 1997-2006, which was the root of this disaster. But regardless of party, the entire philosophy behind deregulation was conservatism -- it's been one of its economic cornerstones.

So this economic disaster is best understood as a failure of conservatism generally.

The last 8 years have proved this.

I feel there should be a balance. You can't give handouts if you don't have money coming in.. but there will always be those who are unable to help themselves.

Jerry Seinfeld once said "The reason there is unemployment in this country is that you have people saying 'I might be starving and homeless, but I ain't cleaning that up'.."

lusus · Post by **lusus** » October 16th, 2008, 6:13 pm

>>But regardless of party, the entire philosophy behind deregulation was conservatism -- it's been one of its economic cornerstones.<<

Serious question, and please be specific - what act or law was deregulated in the name of 'conservatism', and how did that deregulation directly lead to the credit crisis? And who repealed it?

And riddle me this - do you honestly think that 'conservatives' and 'greedy wall streeters' wanted this to happen? Guess who owned nearly a third of Bear, Stearns stock? BSC employees. And while the CEO may have made $50mm per year, there were thousands of employees who made $100K - $1mm per year who are now out of work and their 401K is trashed. Ditto for Lehman, AIG, WaMu, Wachovia, etc.

This happened because Congress decided home ownership is a right. Normal risk controls were taken off lending institutions - essentially forcing lenders to give loans to people who clearly couldn't pay them back. Do you think the smart guys at Goldman Sachs wanted to do that? Bear Stearns? Would you lend money to a stranger with 4 kids who works at Wal-Mart? No? Congress would and demanded it happen through - you guessed it - Freddie and Fannie. FRE and FNM then packaged loans to sell to Wall Street, who then repackaged them and sold them to others. Then mortgage lenders got involved - good enough for GSE's, good enough for them. Then it was off to the races. Disaster.

But make no mistake - lending money that can't be repaid did NOT start in the private sector. Wall Street passed on that game, but their hand was forced by your Congress.

Charlie 51 · Post by **Charlie 51** » October 16th, 2008, 7:05 pm

The Sleepy Doc wrote: I feel there should be a balance.

I know this quote is a little out of context but I agree there should be balance

What balance do you think there will be when BaCrack and his droogies are elected and the House and Senate are in the complete clutches of the Dems with no chance of a fillibuster?

Obama is leading the Lambs to slaughter.......how loud do you bleat?

BadMuther · Post by **BadMuther** » October 16th, 2008, 8:26 pm

Sleepy Doc, rest easy on deregulation. Return to the 18-900's? Hardly.

Thanks to your beloved liberals, the feds crank out millions of new regulations every year. Do you honestly think those will ever be rolled back????

Part of the problem is the feds get involved in something they have no business being involved in (free markets) and then it throws the whole system out of whack until we get where we are today.

McD · Post by **McD** » October 17th, 2008, 3:33 am

Seems like I remeber that Clinton was at the reins and pushed the Fannie and Freddie stupidity. The fuse was lit for this disaster back in the 90's

Unfortunately, Bush happened to be in office when the Demo's fuck up floated to the surface. I don't agree with all of the Republican's ideas but it seems like some of the Demo's just can't man up to their own mistakes.

And I gar-uuun-tee you will never see anyone who lives pay check to pay check create any jobs for anyone else. Trickle down is weak but has any one ever saw anything trickle up? It is like pushing a car with a chain.