127 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
SpankySpankster says:
I was delighted to hear tonight about the evil pundits who make a living delivering one-liners.

I can think of some others who got their jobs doing the same thing.

Example: Hope. Change. Yes we can.
reply
curse914 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Dont' for a second pretend this is Party specific.

As a propaganda technique they are referred to as "Glittering generalities".

Method :

Use attractive, but vague words that make speeches and other communications sound good, but in practice say nothing in particular.

Use linguistic patterns such as alliteration, metaphor and reversals that turn your words into poetry that flows and rhymes in hypnotic patterns.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ncmike4 says:
Barry said the cure for poverty is education. For over 50 years the federal government has poured billions and billions of dollars into education. There is NO evidence that poverty is being eliminated, nor any evidence that the educational system is creating less ignorant citizens. On the contrary, falling test scores, graduates lacking basic problem solving skills, analytical methods, and the ability to coherently communicate, is all there is to show for the money burned on this loudly touted, though unsuccessful Democrat crusade.
reply
curse914 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Alot of it is what is being taught. There should be mandatory Critical Thinking classes. I guess I was lucky, my public education was fairly well rounded.

But really, an educated populace is a dangerous populace to a ruling class of wealthy "gentlemen".
linkicon reporticon emailicon
rykatspop says:
We support "free enterprise." I've followed enough of this spin to know the translation: deregulation is good. Markets are self-correcting. Free market economy is good. Trickle down theory will work--just give it another 4 years, and another 4 years. We promise, everyone will be rich if you just leave big business alone.

AS AN INDEPENDENT VOTER, Repugs and Dummies are just giving us the same canned shpeel we always get. Ahh, another heaping, helping serving of lies dished up ever so high.

I saw the Repugs sitting on their hands in that hollowed chamber. I saw them cheering for programs that match their greedy pockets. Yeah, I love how they are ALWAYS willing to cherry pick the goodies, then turn their back on you when the other side would like some give and take. All of the sudden, the other side are whiners, communists, idiots.

Ron Paul, Ralph Nadar, Kicinich: that's who I want to see up there in the next BIG national, televised debate. Sadly, they will never be invited by the evil 2 running the show.
reply
curse914 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I voted for Nader. How long has he been saying that the two Partys are the same? And he pretty much introduced America to the term Oligarchy.

The SCOTUS ruling on corporate Personhood is pretty stark evidence of an Oligarchy.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
curse914 says:
by flyinglibertarian January 27, 2010 11:28 PM EST
I would only add that Barney Frank (D-MA), was the principal obstructionist to attempts pre-meltdown to regulate Freddie and Fannie.

Don't believe me: go ahead and go to youtube or google and search for "Barney Frank Mac testimony". Watch Frank himself testify that there was no need to further regulate Freddie and Fannie, and that both were "fundamentally sound".


Consider yourself helped, twice over:


Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
reply
flyinglibertarian replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Well, well, well...curse914..what a refreshing change to see an educated poster, armed with FACTS, on CBSNews.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
curse914 says:
by FutureDictator January 27, 2010 10:22 PM EST
"The GOP will not admit any wrong doing when it comes to the Deregulation of the Financial Sector or the Energy and Commodities Markets. Deregulation is shouted from the hill top as if Moses had just forgotten to read that commandment. Unfettered Capitalism is a Dead Scene"

Help me understand something- it was deregulation that led to the problems with the financial markets? I thought the backbone of lending, and the largest reason for the economies downturn, were because of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which control... half of all mortgages??

---------------------------

Consider yourself helped:


Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
reply
flyinglibertarian replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I would only add that Barney Frank (D-MA), was the principal obstructionist to attempts pre-meltdown to regulate Freddie and Fannie.

Don't believe me: go ahead and go to youtube or google and search for "Barney Frank Mac testimony". Watch Frank himself testify that there was no need to further regulate Freddie and Fannie, and that both were "fundamentally sound".

The Republicans warned you before this meltdown happened. The Democrats blocked regulations and then miraculously induced you to drink their memory erasing ideology koolaid to believe that it was that dastardly Bush guy's fault.

Hey, wasn't Barney Frank sleeping with Freddie Mac's CEO at the time? HMMMM! Those pesky facts....
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jheyssel says:
To all,

Most of what is written above is nonsense.

Before you take on "economic issues" you might want to read Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose", who discusses Thomas Jefferson's politico-economic philosopy and where the Federal Government, from the time of the founding, has gone wrong in forcing monetary policy on the American public and its financial institutions.

Oh, yeah, Friedman won a Nobel prize in Economics. So, maybe he has some things to say about how a government should or should not interfere with free market economy, and why.

Grow up. Do your research. Almost all the posts to this blog are absurd.

Jim Heyssel
reply
FutureDictator replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Reading a book doesn't make you smarter than everyone. The fact you think it does speaks volumes about you. Bow to me now.
democracy1 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
When the banks are playing high-risk (for the people), high gains (for the banks) casino games with the peoples' money to the possible detriment of the entire economic system of the country, it would be considered prudent in the mind of any sane, rational person that the government step in.

The myth that the free market is always responsible and self-correcting is only that--a myth as has been proven by the recent economic meltdown. Greed is NOT self-correcting, no matter HOW many famous analysts want to claim otherwise.
sukitbigtime replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hey jim....what's my name?? i'm SURE you're a babyboomer too...fall down, let your mind wander. Your attitude sucks man
linkicon reporticon emailicon
FutureDictator says:
democracy1
banks (for example) pay for our elected officials to run a campaign and get elected
banks get to abuse the system bc the politicians allow them (or the politician has no money to get elected)
bank fails, gov't takes over bank, gov't gets more powerful
What am I missing here?
reply
democracy1 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Nice scenario. NOT what occurred, however, in terms of your attempt at the causes and effect issues.
jheyssel replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You are no future dictator, since your understanding of economics, of how people negotiate prices for goods and services is juvenile. First, when economists talks "free market" what they mean is "any market", which will exist under even the worst government policies. Under the Soviet Union, the biggest "black" free market in the world was what happened. I said nothing about legal free markets. Nor does free market theory. Free Markets exist, even under oppressive regimes, because that is WHAT PEOPLE DO TO MAKE A LIVING.

You just don't get it.

If you believe the "government" is a viable option to free markets, well, you got it wrong... you stupid.
FutureDictator replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Jheyssel- don't quit your day job. People like you that think they're so smart usually aren't!
And democracy- why do you call yourself that when you clearly don't believe it? Go ahead, call me a racist or whatever name you think up. You're opinion as a liberal is becoming less and less relevant every day.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
flyinglibertarian says:
Thank God for the "Party of No". Without them, this administration would have already socialized toilet paper distribution at Walmart.

Legislative obstructionism of the minority party is the requisite balance of power expected and required of our checks and balances system, and particulaly so when there is a supermajority pandering to special interests. Example of that brings union leadership at the whitehouse, behind closed doors, telling Obama that, no, they would not be allowing union rank and file to be subjected to taxation on their "cadillac" health plans.

No special interests. Except for the dems own, of course.

When the Republicans were attempting to pass financial regulations to curb Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae excess just before this big credit meltdown, the Democrats jackbooted any attempt to do so. When they were the "party of no" and it was in fact truly the wrong time to do it, where where all of you cheeleaders then?
reply
democracy1 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I believe that John McCain's warning re: Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac (with Frist and Shelby as co-signers) was written in May 2006. How could the Democrats have been the party of no at that point with a Republican President and a Republican congress?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
uraweful says:
Black woman, Asian man, military dude. What a wonderful media strategist you have. Republicans do not care about human beings. They pretend to with the "it's a human not an embryo" but if you are already exist you mean nothing unless you have money. Politics=reality t.v. You do not care about people. I wish you would stop pretending because some people actually believe that you do. Savvy, you certainly are. Moral you are not. You are disgusting.
reply
hdc77494 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Caring about people doesn't mean taking your money to do things for them they should do themselves. We don't object to social safety nets, but ours is too large and costs so much it's endangering our ability to support it.
FutureDictator replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Oh what a surprise- a liberal calling Republicans names. How original.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
barryxe says:
"This foreign terror suspect was given the same legal rights as a U.S. citizen, and immediately stopped providing critical intelligence." Isn't that rather afforded the guarantees provided by the US Consititution. Do we allow non-citizens the rights to torture, indefinite confinement... what would have happened to John Lennon in the 1970's?
reply
4/6