|
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 4:11 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:57:31 -0800 (PST), marcia wrote: Get it out of the pockets of the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy Didn't realize that Franklin Raines of Freddie and the other idiot at Fannie were right-wingers. Not to mention the Fed. Govt, pressuring the right-wing bankers to make home loans to deadbeats. And it was Jimmy Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" that started the ball rolling. Willie kept it rolling when he rewrote regulations that would have prevented much of the abuse. You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton, limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare, and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients, right? Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Abuse will always prevail whenever humans are involved. You don't think there was any abuse by wealthy bankers of the $350 billion tossed at financial institutions? Yeah, I know: Whatever goes wrong, it's always the liberals' and never the conservatives' fault (or vice-versa). That's why I typically stay out of the political threads. It's my understanding (I'll have to find a cite because I haven't discussed this in awhile) that the Community Reinvestment Act mortgages actually out-perform standard commercial mortgages. I've read the act, and it *clearly* states loans are to be made using sound business practices. The real problem loans were the ninjas (no income, no job or assets) -- the no-documentation loans -- that were popular prior to the real estate bubble popping. You really can't blame that on either party. Also, the Democrats had nothing to do with the banks converting all those bad ARMS and ninja loans (most of which were *not* part of government mandates) into complex derivatives that now can't be disentangled for refinancing. Nor did the Democrats have anything to do with financial institutions leveraging their investments 40:1, which is *way* beyond typical accepted practice (ask Greenspan). |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 4:13 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote:
"marcia" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 3:43 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message ... Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of church and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT to force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in many cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you' figuratively speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.) How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take your filthy hands out of mine? -- Gregory Hall Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in most cases) paid into it before they became disabled. You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with. I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current state of our economy. We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we don't personally support. Why is that, Marcia? Well, the answer is simple. It is liberals and socialists who forced these welfare programs on everybody. Conservatives want nothing to do with them but are forced to contribute anyway. So when I say take your filthy hands out of my pocket and reach into your own instead you liberals say, "**** you - we're gonna make everybody pay whether they want to or not." In other words charity doesn't start at home for a liberal. Charity starts by reaching into somebody else's pocket. It's all too easy being generous with somebody else's money, isn't it. But when it comes to donating your own you liberals are such a stingy lot.http://digg.com/politics/Conservativ...e_30_more_than... That's the difference. -- Gregory Hall Okay, Greg. Take my money out of Iraq. Get it out of the pockets of the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy. Give me back my portion of the money that went to the oil companies who continue making record profits every quarter, without reinvesting in refineries, etc., and instead invest in green energy. It doesn't work like that, Marcia. When you agree to have taxes taken out of your paycheck you have no say as to how they are spent. You can't vote for taxes and then whine out loud that you expect to have a say in how they are used. It's too late after the horse is out of the barn. Exactly my point, Greg. Many of us like the programs you despise and despise the programs you like, so we're all paying for *some* things we don't approve of because we have no control over how the budget is spent. And you're totally wrong about it being bankers who tanked the economy. It was left-wing policies, namely banks being supported by liberals like Barney Frank assisted by the liberal CEO's of Fanny May and Freddy Mac, to lend money for mortages to minorities and other people who could not possibly pay back the loans. (Community Reinvestment Act - the root cause liberal legislation) These bad loans were bought up by Freddy and Fanny and packaged and sold on up the line. When it came to the point where these people who could not possibly pay off loans they never should have been given in the first place started defaulting in droves then the whole Ponzi scheme came tumbling down. This was largely percipitated by oil going up to 150 dollars a barrel and gasoline, diesel and heating oil prices skyrocketing so people used up all their mortgage money paying for energy. This is also caused by liberal polices that restrict drilling and exploration for new petroleum reserves. That's just plain wrong. Read my response about mortgages to Way Back Jack, because I don't want to type the whole damned thing again. See where I'm going with this? The Republicans initiated a few programs/policies/wars I don't approve of, but still have to finance. Doesn't matter. The minute you approve of any taxes you give tacit approval of all the things those taxes are used for. As long as you are for any income taxes or payroll taxes you have lost total control of how and where they are spent. I understand that, but don't see any viable alternative. What's your solution? Anarchy? You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton, limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare, and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients, right? Was that the one the Republican majority in congress crammed down his unwilling throat? Is that how you remember it? -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 4:34 pm, Robb wrote:
Whiner, spray Tax and Fruitcake remover on your paycheck. ROFL! That was the highlight of my day. I'm gonna steal that line. :) |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"Robb" wrote in message
... Gregory Hall wrote: "marcia" wrote in message news:b7697920-1841-4e1f-a97a- ... On Feb 6, 3:43 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message news:e69fbbc4-28d9-4b44- ... On Feb 6, 3:14 pm, "Gregory Hall" wrote: "marcia" wrote in message news:f70e74df-b388-404b- ... Or, people who don't rely on welfare or medicaid, but whom Jack doesn't approve of receiving SSDI because his crystal ball says they're too healthy to get it. Also in Jack's world: Once on disability, always on disability. Once on disability = always a leach. Even if you can't work because of a disability it's your family's responsibility or the responsibility of church and charities if you have no family members. Why has it become your RIGHT to force me as a taxpayer to take care of you because you are disabled, in many cases self-inflected either by stupidity or sloth. (I use 'you' figuratively speaking this isn't necessarily meant as a personal attack.) How about you liberals reach into your OWN pockets for money and take your filthy hands out of mine? -- Gregory Hall Why is it conservatives' arguments always seem to assume liberals don't practice what they preach? *Everyone* who works pays into Social Security, not just Republicans. I pay into it; disabled people (in most cases) paid into it before they became disabled. You don't like welfare and disability; I'm not particularly happy about how much money we spend on the military, particularly on the war in Iraq, where we never should have gone to begin with. I'm not happy about underwriting corporate welfare, or the fact that my tax dollars were partially used to subsidize year-end bonuses for the financial "geniuses" who were largely responsible for the current state of our economy. We individual taxpayers don't get to pick and choose how our dollars are spent. We're all stuck paying for some programs and policies we don't personally support. Why is that, Marcia? Well, the answer is simple. It is liberals and socialists who forced these welfare programs on everybody. Conservatives want nothing to do with them but are forced to contribute anyway. So when I say take your filthy hands out of my pocket and reach into your own instead you liberals say, "**** you - we're gonna make everybody pay whether they want to or not." In other words charity doesn't start at home for a liberal. Charity starts by reaching into somebody else's pocket. It's all too easy being generous with somebody else's money, isn't it. But when it comes to donating your own you liberals are such a stingy lot.http://digg.com/politics/ Conservatives_charitably_donate_30_more_than... That's the difference. -- Gregory Hall Okay, Greg. Take my money out of Iraq. Get it out of the pockets of the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy. Give me back my portion of the money that went to the oil companies who continue making record profits every quarter, without reinvesting in refineries, etc., and instead invest in green energy. It doesn't work like that, Marcia. When you agree to have taxes taken out of your paycheck you have no say as to how they are spent. You can't vote for taxes and then whine out loud that you expect to have a say in how they are used. It's too late after the horse is out of the barn. And you're totally wrong about it being bankers who tanked the economy. It was left-wing policies, namely banks being supported by liberals like Barney Frank assisted by the liberal CEO's of Fanny May and Freddy Mac, to lend money for mortages to minorities and other people who could not possibly pay back the loans. (Community Reinvestment Act - the root cause liberal legislation) These bad loans were bought up by Freddy and Fanny and packaged and sold on up the line. When it came to the point where these people who could not possibly pay off loans they never should have been given in the first place started defaulting in droves then the whole Ponzi scheme came tumbling down. This was largely percipitated by oil going up to 150 dollars a barrel and gasoline, diesel and heating oil prices skyrocketing so people used up all their mortgage money paying for energy. This is also caused by liberal polices that restrict drilling and exploration for new petroleum reserves. You wingnuts have perfect insight (by virtue of hindsight), I love the way Repugs insist that people would rather have a car than a house. Until winter, or the middle of summer. Yeah. See where I'm going with this? The Republicans initiated a few programs/policies/wars I don't approve of, but still have to finance. Doesn't matter. The minute you approve of any taxes you give tacit approval of all the things those taxes are used for. As long as you are for any income taxes or payroll taxes you have lost total control of how and where they are spent. Whiner, spray Tax and Fruitcake remover on your paycheck. You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton, limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare, and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients, right? Was that the one the Republican majority in congress crammed down his unwilling throat? Google hates you? You're another of those liberal history revisionists, huh? Read it and weep: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3133219AANXEA3 "Q: What about the political landscape in 1996-and the realities of the welfare state-pushed welfare reform to the top of the agenda in 1996 and made its passage possible? "A: Then-governor Bill Clinton surprised Republicans by making welfare reform a major issue in his 1992 campaign. His skillful use of welfare reform was a key ingredient in his victory, especially in battleground states like Ohio. But when President Clinton failed to push welfare reform, Republicans in the House formed working groups to draft legislation that they believed would revolutionize several of the nation's major welfare programs and save money for taxpayers. With Congressional Republicans united behind a revolutionary welfare reform bill, and with Clinton and the Democratic Party badly divided on welfare reform, the shocking elections of 1994 gave Republicans control of both the House and the Senate. Another factor pushing welfare reform to the top of the agenda was public support. Polls showed that the public favored work over welfare by huge margins. Another important factor was strong evidence that the old system, which gave people cash without expecting anything in return, contributed to making people dependent on welfare and to having babies outside marriage. When the moment of truth arrived in 1996, the old welfare system had no serious defenders." Like I said, it was crammed down Clinton's throat. He used welfare reform to get elected but never had the first intention of actually reforming it. Typical lying liberal. -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:25:18 -0800 (PST), marcia
wrote: On Feb 6, 4:11 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:57:31 -0800 (PST), marcia wrote: Get it out of the pockets of the right-wing bankers who tanked the economy Didn't realize that Franklin Raines of Freddie and the other idiot at Fannie were right-wingers. Not to mention the Fed. Govt, pressuring the right-wing bankers to make home loans to deadbeats. And it was Jimmy Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act" that started the ball rolling. Willie kept it rolling when he rewrote regulations that would have prevented much of the abuse. You are aware of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOR, aka "welfare reform") that took place under Clinton, limiting the amount of time an individual can be eligible for welfare, and enforcing work and/or education requirements on most recipients, right? Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Abuse will always prevail whenever humans are involved. You don't think there was any abuse by wealthy bankers of the $350 billion tossed at financial institutions? Yeah, I know: Whatever goes wrong, it's always the liberals' and never the conservatives' fault (or vice-versa). That's why I typically stay out of the political threads. It's my understanding (I'll have to find a cite because I haven't discussed this in awhile) that the Community Reinvestment Act mortgages actually out-perform standard commercial mortgages. I've read the act, and it *clearly* states loans are to be made using sound business practices. The real problem loans were the ninjas (no income, no job or assets) -- the no-documentation loans -- that were popular prior to the real estate bubble popping. You really can't blame that on either party. Also, the Democrats had nothing to do with the banks converting all those bad ARMS and ninja loans (most of which were *not* part of government mandates) into complex derivatives that now can't be disentangled for refinancing. Nor did the Democrats have anything to do with financial institutions leveraging their investments 40:1, which is *way* beyond typical accepted practice (ask Greenspan). There's plenty of blame to go around but the MSM absolutely refuses to recognize Clinton's rewrite in 1994 when he unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On 06 Feb 2009 21:38:13 GMT, Robb wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote: Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Ever going to migrate to the new century Wayback? How many "enterprises" are capable of abusing various states debit systems, anyhow? I'll migrate into socialism with fists flying and feet kicking, twinky. |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
"Way Back Jack" wrote in message
... On 06 Feb 2009 21:38:13 GMT, Robb wrote: Way Back Jack wrote: Yeah, a conservative Congress compromised with Willie into changing AFDC into TANF, but abuse still prevails. Ever going to migrate to the new century Wayback? How many "enterprises" are capable of abusing various states debit systems, anyhow? I'll migrate into socialism with fists flying and feet kicking, twinky. And guns blazing in my case. -- Gregory Hall |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
On Feb 6, 9:17*am, marcia wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:08 pm, "Piltdown Man" wrote: A brilliant genius! Sez a sock with seven posts to its name, all in groups where Gregory Hall/Capt. Neal hangs out. Pitiful when you have to sock up to boost your own ego. relevant groups added Why should you be surprised that Greggie does this? |
Gregory Hall Socks up to praise himself.
In article ,
says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:12:57 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Kali wrote: In article , says... Marcia wrote in reference to my antipathy toward most things liberal (paraphrased): Jack, that's a strange attitude for someone who worked at SSA. _______ Yeah, I have this belief that society has a duty to help those who cannot work because of a physical or mental impairment, as opposed to redistributing the wealth to healthy welfare mammies, mammy. Just another example of my contradictory nature. ____ Posted from alt.free.newsservers So, people who rely on welfare for 6 mos - 2 years for medicaid and food while waiting for SS to be approved are welfare mammies, then when their SS is approved, they are worthy of help. What part of "healthy" don't you understand? Ok, let's take what he said literally. I'll read "healthy welfare mammies" as young, single, black mothers, living at or below the poverty level. Are white ones ok - the 18 year-old daughter of a laid off steel worker, for example? What about males? They aren't mammies, so are they ok for food stamps and medical assistance? What hand-outs designed to help these people get off the govt teet, like job training and Pell grants for college? Who will watch "welfare mammies" babies while they are at work, or school? Who gets help and who doesn't? You make a lot of presumptions regarding race, sex, etc. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors. A thought cop or just being disingenuous, perhaps. You know about whom I am talking. "welfare mammies" http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/mammies/more/ They come in all flavors, but if you think I'm not including the pale varirty, perhaps next time I'll say "welfare mammies and sows." Iz zat better? So just the females who get pregnant and have babies. Single and married? Just the single ones? What about the fathers of those children, presumably the "pappies" and the "boars"? And while we're on the subject of "welfare mammies" - who is opposed to funding for family planning, sex education, birth control, abortion, educational assistance, job finding assistance, and child care? The same people who bitch about "welfare mammies". -- Kali With the exception of educational assistance, I'm absolutely against of those left-wing abominations, Hillary. Your solution for poverty? -- Kali It starts with responsible parenting. Are people so ****ing stupid so as not to realize that they should not make babies until they are established? But they don't ca da gubmint will take care of 'em. That's what LBJ told the mammies / sows when he promised us all cradle-to-grave entitlement but delivered the massive welfare state we have today. How about those fathers? It continues with those parents teaching personal responsibility and making the effort to leave the liberals' victim plantation of dependence and self-pity. People who live in poverty have no sense of personal responsibility? Sex education should be delivered by parents. You want to spend taxpayer money to teach Junior and Sally to wait until they're married and most importantly be MONOGAMOUS? They're not going to listen to those "educators" anyway; they certainly haven't the past 50 years. I want children to be educated about sexual reproduction, hormonal changes in young adulthood, birth control options and resources, and STDs and AIDS. Job-finding? Get your nose into the want-ads; you want Uncle Sam to lead you by the hand to employers' doors? Do you know anything about poverty and opportunity? Yeah, I'm all for low-interest or even no-interest tuition money for those needy students who crave education and treat education as a precious gift as we see among many Asians and Jews, Asians and Jews? but for most of the rest of your socialist perks, fahgetaboutit. Your ignorance won't help solve the problem of poverty. Socialism doesn't solve it, but since you mention socialism, may as well mention that capitalism doesn't solve it, either. -- Kali |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com