Those whining about Obama screwing up the country are out of their fucking minds. He save the economy with a GOP congress fighting him every step of the way. Got our foreign policy back in order. Took out Bin Laden. Got universal healthcare. Yep, it cost a bunch of money but what the fuck? The prior administration blew a hole in our roof, broke every fucking window, ripped up the floors, and drove the family car off a cliff. Damn straight it was gonna be costly to fix. What was the alternative? Just let collapse?

Fucking Rightards.

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those whining about Obama screwing up the country
> are out of their fucking minds. He save the
> economy with a GOP congress fighting him every
> step of the way. Got our foreign policy back in
> order. Took out Bin Laden. Got universal
> healthcare. Yep, it cost a bunch of money but
> what the fuck? The prior administration blew a
> hole in our roof, broke every fucking window,
> ripped up the floors, and drove the family car off
> a cliff. Damn straight it was gonna be costly to
> fix. What was the alternative? Just let
> collapse?
>
> Fucking Rightards.
Attachments:

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those whining about Obama screwing up the country
> are out of their fucking minds. He save the
> economy with a GOP congress fighting him every
> step of the way. Got our foreign policy back in
> order. Took out Bin Laden. Got universal
> healthcare. Yep, it cost a bunch of money but
> what the fuck? The prior administration blew a
> hole in our roof, broke every fucking window,
> ripped up the floors, and drove the family car off
> a cliff. Damn straight it was gonna be costly to
> fix. What was the alternative? Just let
> collapse?
>
> Fucking Rightards.

Factual error here.

Obama had a Democrat majority house and Senate the first to years. So the Republicans didn't have the power to do anything to stop whatever he wanted to do. I don't think the GOP even had the power to filibuster.

in 2010 a Republican house was voted in and Scott Brown of MA was his Senate race presumably to stop Obama and the Democratic agenda.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2012 01:51PM by Hay Zeus.

The dems you speak of were blue dogs so was never a shoe in.

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The dems you speak of were blue dogs so was never
> a shoe in.


Alan Grayson was a blu dog?
Bill Foster?
John Adler?
John Hall?
Steve Kagan?

This is just a few off the top of my head. True, some blue dogs lost and retired, but most who got beat were not blue dogs.

Don't worry, I know how tough facts are for you.

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those whining about Obama screwing up the country
> are out of their fucking minds. He save the
> economy with a GOP congress fighting him every
> step of the way. Got our foreign policy back in
> order. Took out Bin Laden. Got universal
> healthcare. Yep, it cost a bunch of money but
> what the fuck? The prior administration blew a
> hole in our roof, broke every fucking window,
> ripped up the floors, and drove the family car off
> a cliff. Damn straight it was gonna be costly to
> fix. What was the alternative? Just let
> collapse?
>
> Fucking Rightards.

No more FREE STUFF for you.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Factual error here.
>
> Obama had a Democrat majority house and Senate the
> first to years. So the Republicans didn't have the
> power to do anything to stop whatever he wanted to
> do. I don't think the GOP even had the power to
> filibuster.
>
> in 2010 a Republican house was voted in and Scott
> Brown of MA was his Senate race presumably to stop
> Obama and the Democratic agenda.


But doesn't this little fact shoot a hole straight through the primary argument against Obama?

If he was such a radical socialist, why didn't he steamroll all of his nefarious socialist agenda through in those two years? Was he just lazy?

...or ... maybe ... he isn't such a radical, after all. Maybe he was busy in those first two years trying to shore up a faltering economy?

Maybe? Or maybe the extremist agenda at Fox News has a response for this?

Blue Dog Balls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brawny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The dems you speak of were blue dogs so was
> never
> > a shoe in.
>
>
> Alan Grayson was a blu dog?
> Bill Foster?
> John Adler?
> John Hall?
> Steve Kagan?
>
> This is just a few off the top of my head. True,
> some blue dogs lost and retired, but most who got
> beat were not blue dogs.
>
> Don't worry, I know how tough facts are for you.

Didn't mean the dems that lost but that this "super majority" dem house the rightards like to talk about had several blue dogs so their votes weren't a shoe in.

not ducking the tough issues, leading


ice cold, not hot, night dark, not sunny, america better, not worse

Conflict of Interest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> But doesn't this little fact shoot a hole straight
> through the primary argument against Obama?
>
> If he was such a radical socialist, why didn't he
> steamroll all of his nefarious socialist agenda
> through in those two years? Was he just lazy?
>
> ...or ... maybe ... he isn't such a radical, after
> all. Maybe he was busy in those first two years
> trying to shore up a faltering economy?
>
> Maybe? Or maybe the extremist agenda at Fox News
> has a response for this?

He tried right away and succeeded with Obamacare. However voters responded as best they could to put a stop to anymore "fundamental" transformations via a Republican majority house.

During the next two years Obama did what he could playing loose with constitutional powers granted to the executive.

1)He cherry picked which laws he wanted to enforce instead of enforcing all laws as he is requires.
2)Used Federal buracracies such as the EPA to regulate industry basically imposing Cap and Trade measures that were overwhelming voted down by Congress thus overstepping Congress by implementing regulations as law, not passed by Congress
3)Sued States in the Supreme court that were trying to execute Federal laws such as immigration control/border contral and reinforce laws such as voter ID laws
4) Obama himself states "if Congress does not act then I will"
5) He also bullied the Supreme Court into rewritting Obamacare to "correct" it so that it could sort of pass Constitutional "mustard" for lack of a better term. The Supreme Court does not have the power to rewrite or pass legislation. Of course a weak Supreme Court is just as much to blame on this one.

So No, he is still chugging along as best he can until he can win another 4 years. If he wins Who knows what will happen but its going to take us backwards NOT forward, history tells us that much.

Republican leadership in the house is weak so no doubt he will get away with more.

.... go back.
Attachments:

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 5) He also bullied the Supreme Court into
> rewritting Obamacare to "correct" it so that it
> could sort of pass Constitutional "mustard" for
> lack of a better term. The Supreme Court does not
> have the power to rewrite or pass legislation. Of
> course a weak Supreme Court is just as much to
> blame on this one.

It's "muster", not mustard. Mustard is a condiment.

>
> So No, he is still chugging along as best he can
> until he can win another 4 years. If he wins Who
> knows what will happen but its going to take us
> backwards NOT forward, history tells us that much.

If Who knows, why won't he tell us?

Obama "bullied" the Supreme Court into "rewriting" Obamacare? Hahahahaha!!! You people are too much!

> 1)He cherry picked which laws he wanted to enforce
> instead of enforcing all laws as he is requires.

Can you be more vague? What the fuck?


> 2)Used Federal buracracies such as the EPA to
> regulate industry basically imposing Cap and Trade
> measures that were overwhelming voted down by
> Congress thus overstepping Congress by
> implementing regulations as law, not passed by
> Congress

See above.


> 3)Sued States in the Supreme court that were
> trying to execute Federal laws such as immigration
> control/border contral and reinforce laws such as
> voter ID laws

pssst. Racial profiling is illegal.

> 4) Obama himself states "if Congress does not act
> then I will"

I fucking agree with him. Fuck congress. A bunch of impotent useless old men.


> 5) He also bullied the Supreme Court into
> rewritting Obamacare to "correct" it so that it
> could sort of pass Constitutional "mustard" for
> lack of a better term. The Supreme Court does not
> have the power to rewrite or pass legislation. Of
> course a weak Supreme Court is just as much to
> blame on this one.

How the fuck do you bully the Supreme Court. Do the rightards really believe this? What a whining bunch of pussies.

>
> So No, he is still chugging along as best he can
> until he can win another 4 years. If he wins Who
> knows what will happen but its going to take us
> backwards NOT forward, history tells us that much.
>
>
> Republican leadership in the house is weak so no
> doubt he will get away with more.

Have a great day.

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> How the fuck do you bully the Supreme Court. Do
> the rightards really believe this? What a whining
> bunch of pussies.

How do you bully a bunch of people who are appointed for life? Usually people cry that the judges are legislating from the bench. That argument makes more sense at least.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brawny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > How the fuck do you bully the Supreme Court.
> Do
> > the rightards really believe this? What a
> whining
> > bunch of pussies.
>
> How do you bully a bunch of people who are
> appointed for life? Usually people cry that the
> judges are legislating from the bench. That
> argument makes more sense at least.

Its human to want to be liked by other people. The Obama as the president has something called the "Bully Pulpit" and he used successfully to target Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Who i can only speculate wanted to be remembered kindly by history as the non activist judge appointed by a republican but saved legislation providing free healthcare to all passed by a Democrat congresss and signed into law by a Democrat president. Thus proving he was not a "right wing" activist judge. Whatever his reason was I think it was a play by Roberts to protect his personal legacy.

Horton sees a Who? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's "muster", not mustard. Mustard is a
> condiment.
>

Must be nice to be perfect

> >
> > So No, he is still chugging along as best he
> can
> > until he can win another 4 years. If he wins
> Who
> > knows what will happen but its going to take us
> > backwards NOT forward, history tells us that
> much.
>
> If Who knows, why won't he tell us?

Because if Liberal/Progressive Democrats actually explained in plain english what direction they want to take the country they will lose every single election.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Horton sees a Who? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > It's "muster", not mustard. Mustard is a
> > condiment.
> >
>
> Must be nice to be perfect
>
> > >
> > > So No, he is still chugging along as best he
> > can
> > > until he can win another 4 years. If he wins
> > Who
> > > knows what will happen but its going to take
> us
> > > backwards NOT forward, history tells us that
> > much.
> >
> > If Who knows, why won't he tell us?
>
> Because if Liberal/Progressive Democrats actually
> explained in plain english what direction they
> want to take the country they will lose every
> single election.


Exactly right. They can't because they know that most of it would be rejected by the "ignorant" masses they so despise yet pretend to advocate for. That's why their always telling us not to worry our little heads about things. We have to pass it before you'll know what's in it... and then it will be too late you dumb fuckers! hahahahaha ;)

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Horton sees a Who? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > It's "muster", not mustard. Mustard is a
> > condiment.
> >
>
> Must be nice to be perfect
>
> > >
> > > So No, he is still chugging along as best he
> > can
> > > until he can win another 4 years. If he wins
> > Who
> > > knows what will happen but its going to take
> us
> > > backwards NOT forward, history tells us that
> > much.
> >
> > If Who knows, why won't he tell us?
>
> Because if Liberal/Progressive Democrats actually
> explained in plain english what direction they
> want to take the country they will lose every
> single election.


Sigh.

Hay Zeus Wrote:

> Its human to want to be liked by other people. The
> Obama as the president has something called the
> "Bully Pulpit" and he used successfully to target
> Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Who i can only
> speculate wanted to be remembered kindly by
> history as the non activist judge appointed by a
> republican but saved legislation providing free
> healthcare to all passed by a Democrat congresss
> and signed into law by a Democrat president. Thus
> proving he was not a "right wing" activist judge.
> Whatever his reason was I think it was a play by
> Roberts to protect his personal legacy.

Or perhaps he found it actually passed constitutional muster. Mr. Roberts will likely be on the bench 25 more years, so I think he's well aware of all the time he has to burnish his achievements and try to become the Oliver Wendell Holmes of the 21st century. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that a man as obviously intelligent as the Chief Justice would perform the following calculus...

"I have concluded that Obamacare is unconstitutional, but I don't want history to say I was mean to the first black president. So I'll be a nice guy today and the butt of lawyer jokes after 2075 and give in".

YellowDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
>
> > Its human to want to be liked by other people.
> The
> > Obama as the president has something called the
> > "Bully Pulpit" and he used successfully to
> target
> > Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Who i can
> only
> > speculate wanted to be remembered kindly by
> > history as the non activist judge appointed by
> a
> > republican but saved legislation providing free
> > healthcare to all passed by a Democrat
> congresss
> > and signed into law by a Democrat president.
> Thus
> > proving he was not a "right wing" activist
> judge.
> > Whatever his reason was I think it was a play
> by
> > Roberts to protect his personal legacy.
>
> Or perhaps he found it actually passed
> constitutional muster. Mr. Roberts will likely be
> on the bench 25 more years, so I think he's well
> aware of all the time he has to burnish his
> achievements and try to become the Oliver Wendell
> Holmes of the 21st century. Somehow, I find it
> hard to believe that a man as obviously
> intelligent as the Chief Justice would perform the
> following calculus...
>
> "I have concluded that Obamacare is
> unconstitutional, but I don't want history to say
> I was mean to the first black president. So I'll
> be a nice guy today and the butt of lawyer jokes
> after 2075 and give in".


I guess you're forgetting his Rose Garden speech a day or so before when he said:

"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

And when he publicly chastised the court over Citizen's United during the State of the Union Address.

And how DEMOCRATS claimed that he felt the pressure after Citizens United and Heller not to turn the court into political theater and therefore intentionally wrote the decision accepting it on the basis of a TAX just to screw with Obama. lol

Real World Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YellowDog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hay Zeus Wrote:
> >
> > > Its human to want to be liked by other
> people.
> > The
> > > Obama as the president has something called
> the
> > > "Bully Pulpit" and he used successfully to
> > target
> > > Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Who i can
> > only
> > > speculate wanted to be remembered kindly by
> > > history as the non activist judge appointed
> by
> > a
> > > republican but saved legislation providing
> free
> > > healthcare to all passed by a Democrat
> > congresss
> > > and signed into law by a Democrat president.
> > Thus
> > > proving he was not a "right wing" activist
> > judge.
> > > Whatever his reason was I think it was a play
> > by
> > > Roberts to protect his personal legacy.
> >
> > Or perhaps he found it actually passed
> > constitutional muster. Mr. Roberts will likely
> be
> > on the bench 25 more years, so I think he's
> well
> > aware of all the time he has to burnish his
> > achievements and try to become the Oliver
> Wendell
> > Holmes of the 21st century. Somehow, I find it
> > hard to believe that a man as obviously
> > intelligent as the Chief Justice would perform
> the
> > following calculus...
> >
> > "I have concluded that Obamacare is
> > unconstitutional, but I don't want history to
> say
> > I was mean to the first black president. So
> I'll
> > be a nice guy today and the butt of lawyer
> jokes
> > after 2075 and give in".
>
>
> I guess you're forgetting his Rose Garden speech a
> day or so before when he said:
>
> "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court
> will not take what would be an unprecedented,
> extraordinary step of overturning a law that was
> passed by a strong majority of a democratically
> elected Congress."
>
> And when he publicly chastised the court over
> Citizen's United during the State of the Union
> Address.
>
> And how DEMOCRATS claimed that he felt the
> pressure after Citizens United and Heller not to
> turn the court into political theater and
> therefore intentionally wrote the decision
> accepting it on the basis of a TAX just to
> screw with Obama. lol


That makes absolutely no sense. Which is it? He's bowing to Obama's pressure, and he's thumbing his nose at him?

You have to separate each of the right's talking points, otherwise the conflict between one and the other becomes too apparent.

Hay Zeus Wrote:

>
> Because if Liberal/Progressive Democrats actually
> explained in plain english what direction they
> want to take the country they will lose every
> single election.

And you base your sagacious statement on what, exactly? Your feelings, your Mom's, the other guys at Jiffy Lube?

There are intelligent and bold thinking people in the GOP. Unfortunately they are also predators who manipulate the sub-performing and the fearful into continuously voting against their own best interests. Compare the Republican party platform today to that of Mr. Nixon's. It hasn't changed in over 40 years. And it's never going to. Trotting out the same worn cliches every 4 years works for them. They'll rile the masses and never enact any of it, just so they can use it in the next election cycle.

Half of the country already knows where the Left wants to move the country. The other have are incapable of even understanding the message. They have been so propangadized by Fox and other mouthpieces of international business that they lack even the simpliest political vocabulary.

It wasn't always like this, and more than anywhere else, the blame can be placed squarely on Fox News. They pioneered the type of closed loop information dissemination machines that news organizations have become today.

Before Fox, the average citizen could watch an hour of news a night, on a handful of channels, and read the local paper. If the paper's editors had different political proclivites, at least the average citizen could write opposing Letters to the Editor. Above all, everyone was exposed to the views of people with different ideas in fairly neutral venues.

Today, too many peope get their continuous news stream from one source, the one that reaffirms their own beliefs. This has caused a polarization of the body politic, one that, unfortunately for one side, will be resolved by demographics.

Real World is a reality show Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Real World Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > YellowDog Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hay Zeus Wrote:
> > >
> > > > Its human to want to be liked by other
> > people.
> > > The
> > > > Obama as the president has something called
> > the
> > > > "Bully Pulpit" and he used successfully to
> > > target
> > > > Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Who i
> can
> > > only
> > > > speculate wanted to be remembered kindly by
> > > > history as the non activist judge appointed
> > by
> > > a
> > > > republican but saved legislation providing
> > free
> > > > healthcare to all passed by a Democrat
> > > congresss
> > > > and signed into law by a Democrat
> president.
> > > Thus
> > > > proving he was not a "right wing" activist
> > > judge.
> > > > Whatever his reason was I think it was a
> play
> > > by
> > > > Roberts to protect his personal legacy.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps he found it actually passed
> > > constitutional muster. Mr. Roberts will
> likely
> > be
> > > on the bench 25 more years, so I think he's
> > well
> > > aware of all the time he has to burnish his
> > > achievements and try to become the Oliver
> > Wendell
> > > Holmes of the 21st century. Somehow, I find
> it
> > > hard to believe that a man as obviously
> > > intelligent as the Chief Justice would
> perform
> > the
> > > following calculus...
> > >
> > > "I have concluded that Obamacare is
> > > unconstitutional, but I don't want history to
> > say
> > > I was mean to the first black president. So
> > I'll
> > > be a nice guy today and the butt of lawyer
> > jokes
> > > after 2075 and give in".
> >
> >
> > I guess you're forgetting his Rose Garden speech
> a
> > day or so before when he said:
> >
> > "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme
> Court
> > will not take what would be an unprecedented,
> > extraordinary step of overturning a law that
> was
> > passed by a strong majority of a democratically
> > elected Congress."
> >
> > And when he publicly chastised the court over
> > Citizen's United during the State of the Union
> > Address.
> >
> > And how DEMOCRATS claimed that he felt
> the
> > pressure after Citizens United and Heller not
> to
> > turn the court into political theater and
> > therefore intentionally wrote the decision
> > accepting it on the basis of a TAX just
> to
> > screw with Obama. lol
>
>
> That makes absolutely no sense. Which is it? He's
> bowing to Obama's pressure, and he's thumbing his
> nose at him?
>
> You have to separate each of the right's talking
> points, otherwise the conflict between one and the
> other becomes too apparent.


Both wanker. Reading is fundamental.

His speech wasn't a talking point.

Nor was his calling out Roberts.

The only "talking point," which I do understand that you on the Left live by, as was very clearly stated, was by DEMS re his motivation for deciding the case in a way that let him avoid being accused of activism/politicizing the court AND not make it easy for Obama.

If my "talking point" differs from what you expect its because its not a talking point. It is a conclusion derived from facts, logic and reasoning.

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those whining about Obama screwing up the country
> are out of their fucking minds. He save the
> economy with a GOP congress fighting him every
> step of the way. Got our foreign policy back in
> order. Took out Bin Laden. Got universal
> healthcare. Yep, it cost a bunch of money but
> what the fuck? The prior administration blew a
> hole in our roof, broke every fucking window,
> ripped up the floors, and drove the family car off
> a cliff. Damn straight it was gonna be costly to
> fix. What was the alternative? Just let
> collapse?
>
> Fucking Rightards.

Holy moly. The problem is that any fucking retard can fucking spend money. Obama is a fucking retard.

If he were a leader he would have a plan for AFTER spending all the fucking money.

So yes, you are correct, it cost a bunch of money but what the fuck? Yes, indeed. What the fuck is this monkey-ass retarded fucking no-experience having stupid lame ass fuck stick prez going to do now? Now what? Hello? Anything? All I hear is crickets.

Now fucking what you fucking dumb-ass.

Wow, he spent trillions of dollars, he's the greatest president ever. He's a genius. Just like the broke dick 47% who won't pay their mortgages or CC debt or buy cars they can't afford. You must be one of those kinds of people and you must think you're a genius too.

-jg

p.s. Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin' on you?

-
-
-

YellowDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Before Fox, the average citizen could watch an
> hour of news a night, on a handful of channels,
> and read the local paper. If the paper's editors
> had different political proclivites, at least the
> average citizen could write opposing Letters to
> the Editor. Above all, everyone was exposed to
> the views of people with different ideas in fairly
> neutral venues.


Umm the average citizen can still do that. They choose not to. There are different views on all channels. In fact today, you can get not only the viewpoint of Fox, or CNN or your granny, but Pintar in Bangladesh, relatively easily.

What you are referring to is the laziness of the average person to seek out or understand the views. Blaming Fox is kind of childish.



>
> Today, too many peope get their continuous news
> stream from one source, the one that reaffirms
> their own beliefs. This has caused a polarization
> of the body politic, one that, unfortunately for
> one side, will be resolved by demographics.


It isn't as subversive as you seem to believe. My polarization doesn't come from my news source. It comes from the fact that I do not believe in the Left's ideology. I didn't form my political beliefs the day Fox news launched. That is something that retards who 'Occupy Wall Street' think because that is how their beliefs are formed, by TV and media. It wasn't as omnipresent when I was younger, but you can't explain something like that to someone under 27 because they know everything, except how to get a decent job and be productive. And how to not whine about shit all the time.

I don't eat food I don't like, I don't listen to news programming that reaffirms shit I don't believe in.

No body will ever convince me that fairness can be legislated. People need to work to get money to pay taxes and contribute.

I know far too many people who won't work. Not who can't work, won't work. There is no incentive for people who are amenable to a certain standard of living to work. For me, living with my parents, food stamps and WIC checks are not something I will settle for. For MILLIONS of able-bodied, entitled, leeches, this is acceptable. About 47% of America.

For me, the problem in this country is there are WAY too many people who will not work. My company has a dozen job openings and I can't get people to even show up for their interviews on time.

So fuck the 47%

-jg

p.s. Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin' on you?

-
-
-

Johnny Galt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YellowDog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Before Fox, the average citizen could watch an
> > hour of news a night, on a handful of channels,
> > and read the local paper. If the paper's
> editors
> > had different political proclivites, at least
> the
> > average citizen could write opposing Letters to
> > the Editor. Above all, everyone was exposed to
> > the views of people with different ideas in
> fairly
> > neutral venues.
>
>
> Umm the average citizen can still do that. They
> choose not to. There are different views on all
> channels. In fact today, you can get not only the
> viewpoint of Fox, or CNN or your granny, but
> Pintar in Bangladesh, relatively easily.
>
> What you are referring to is the laziness of the
> average person to seek out or understand the
> views. Blaming Fox is kind of childish.
>
>
>
> >
> > Today, too many peope get their continuous news
> > stream from one source, the one that reaffirms
> > their own beliefs. This has caused a
> polarization
> > of the body politic, one that, unfortunately
> for
> > one side, will be resolved by demographics.
>
>
> It isn't as subversive as you seem to believe. My
> polarization doesn't come from my news source. It
> comes from the fact that I do not believe in the
> Left's ideology. I didn't form my political
> beliefs the day Fox news launched. That is
> something that retards who 'Occupy Wall Street'
> think because that is how their beliefs are
> formed, by TV and media. It wasn't as omnipresent
> when I was younger, but you can't explain
> something like that to someone under 27 because
> they know everything, except how to get a decent
> job and be productive. And how to not whine about
> shit all the time.
>
> I don't eat food I don't like, I don't listen to
> news programming that reaffirms shit I don't
> believe in.
>
> No body will ever convince me that fairness can be
> legislated. People need to work to get money to
> pay taxes and contribute.
>
> I know far too many people who won't work. Not who
> can't work, won't work. There is no incentive for
> people who are amenable to a certain standard of
> living to work. For me, living with my parents,
> food stamps and WIC checks are not something I
> will settle for. For MILLIONS of able-bodied,
> entitled, leeches, this is acceptable. About 47%
> of America.
>
> For me, the problem in this country is there are
> WAY too many people who will not work. My company
> has a dozen job openings and I can't get people to
> even show up for their interviews on time.
>
> So fuck the 47%


You win. The left are all liberals, and retarded. The right is patriotic, and strong, and manly.

Congratulations.

@Yellowdog

I think you have nailed it but you really need to cast your net wider than just Fox News. Back in the 1990s it was talk radio that went ultra-conservative and became the echo chamber for the right. I listened to a lot of it at that time (although I could never stomach Rush Limbaugh because he's just too stupid to listen to for any length of time).

What has happened in the past decade with the help of Fox News and other conservative media and the web is that it is possible to be completely immersed in this universe now. What is amazing is that a whole worldview has been synthesized out of the various components of the conservative world into an almost complete philosophy. Social conservatives have embraced the fiscal conservatives and vice-versa. It wasn't always this way.

The thing I think you really have nailed Yellowdog is that the political education and even the news which gets reported on the right is so narrow and exclusionary that all other philosophies or even actual history is not learned or is minimized. As an example, many in the right don't realize that the solid southern bloc of Republicans is a relatively recent phenomenon. It was Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to bring in the "Dixiecrats". Prior to that time there was an unholy alliance between the northern progressive Democrats and the Dixiecrats. The Civil Rights movement split the Democratic Party and the Republicans finally managed to officially pull the Dixiecrats in with Reagan. Up until the 1960s no good Southern boy would ever vote for the party of Lincoln.

To see how far the Republicans have changed in a century, one only has to look back to Roosevelt. Not FDR, but Teddy. He was a truly "Progressive" Republican -- so much so that he eventually left the party to form his own party. Worse, the end result was that Republican Party split away from progressive ideas at that time.

The Progressives were the hostile reaction to the "Guilded Age". You can still see the same arguments in today's politics, but many forget all of the things that the Progressive movement brought about -- the 40 hour work week, regulation of food, the Federal Income Tax, public schools, child-labor laws, trust busting, conservationism (National Parks -- and eventually the environmental movement), prohibition (which has led to our current drug laws) and on and on.

The reason why I bring up the Progressive movement is to say that these ideas would be considered "socialist" or even "communist" in conservative vernacular today -- but they came from a different place.

There are good progressive ideas. There are things that conservatives value from the progressive movement. Progressive (liberal) ideas are not all about "free stuff" -- there are good things that have come from the left.

Johnny Galt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Umm the average citizen can still do that. They
> choose not to. There are different views on all
> channels. In fact today, you can get not only the
> viewpoint of Fox, or CNN or your granny, but
> Pintar in Bangladesh, relatively easily.
>
> What you are referring to is the laziness of the
> average person to seek out or understand the
> views. Blaming Fox is kind of childish.
>

Oh, those lazy people. Thank god you're upstanding and moral, and above all of it.


>
>
> It isn't as subversive as you seem to believe.

From what I read below, it appears it might actually be even more subversive than I first thought.

> My polarization doesn't come from my news source. It
> comes from the fact that I do not believe in the
> Left's ideology. I didn't form my political
> beliefs the day Fox news launched. That is
> something that retards who 'Occupy Wall Street'
> think because that is how their beliefs are
> formed, by TV and media. It wasn't as omnipresent
> when I was younger, but you can't explain
> something like that to someone under 27 because
> they know everything, except how to get a decent
> job and be productive. And how to not whine about
> shit all the time.
>

I'm sure you had conservative views well before Fox News launched. But your views have become more hardened, exaggerated and based more on an incessant hammering of certain ideas and concepts. Take for example your belief that 47% of the country is just looking for a handout.


> I don't eat food I don't like, I don't listen to
> news programming that reaffirms shit I don't
> believe in.
>

You don't listen to news programming that contradicts shit you believe in.



> No body will ever convince me that fairness can be
> legislated. People need to work to get money to
> pay taxes and contribute.

This is a false dilemma. Nobody suggested that everyone should stop working, stop paying taxes and make no contribution. This is just an idea being pushed on certain audiences in order to get them worked up and angry, so they can become even more partisan.


>
> I know far too many people who won't work. Not who
> can't work, won't work. There is no incentive for
> people who are amenable to a certain standard of
> living to work. For me, living with my parents,
> food stamps and WIC checks are not something I
> will settle for. For MILLIONS of able-bodied,
> entitled, leeches, this is acceptable. About 47%
> of America.

You actually know all those people? or does it just seem like it should be true because you keep seeing examples played over and over again, repeated, exaggerated, and repeated again?

I'm guessing you know 2 or 3 people that could loosely fit that description, and your perception is then compounded because this idea gets repeated over and over again.

Think about how you feel about Unions. I'm sure you've always hated unions. You've always felt that they were job destroyers, and entitled, and all that. Except when it was Unions that the Republicans used to coddle in order to get votes, years ago. Think hard, did you really always hate unions?


>
> For me, the problem in this country is there are
> WAY too many people who will not work. My company
> has a dozen job openings and I can't get people to
> even show up for their interviews on time.

What type of jobs are these? If they are $9/hr jobs, that has nothing to do with 47% suddenly being entitled. That level of job will always attract people who also couldn't show up to school and will always be an unreliable portion of the labor force.

Your attitude is shaped (distorted) by the outlets you choose to get your information from. If you don't understand how and why they want to distort those views for a portion of society, then ...
>
> So fuck the 47%

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > brawny Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > How the fuck do you bully the Supreme Court.
> > Do
> > > the rightards really believe this? What a
> > whining
> > > bunch of pussies.
> >
> > How do you bully a bunch of people who are
> > appointed for life? Usually people cry that the
> > judges are legislating from the bench. That
> > argument makes more sense at least.
>
> Its human to want to be liked by other people. The
> Obama as the president has something called the
> "Bully Pulpit" and he used successfully to target
> Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Who i can only
> speculate wanted to be remembered kindly by
> history as the non activist judge appointed by a
> republican but saved legislation providing free
> healthcare to all passed by a Democrat congresss
> and signed into law by a Democrat president. Thus
> proving he was not a "right wing" activist judge.
> Whatever his reason was I think it was a play by
> Roberts to protect his personal legacy.

Whatever. The guy's gonna be on the bench for the next 30yrs. He knows the gov't mandates things like car insurance and realizes if someone goes to the emergency room w/o insurance, we pick up the tab anyways. why not make them pay for the safety net?

Johnny Galt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy moly. The problem is that any fucking retard
> can fucking spend money. Obama is a fucking
> retard.

Really? George W. Bush was just 4years ago. Spent a shitload of money and blew up the house. Are you really that dumb?

>
> If he were a leader he would have a plan for AFTER
> spending all the fucking money.
>
> So yes, you are correct, it cost a bunch of money
> but what the fuck? Yes, indeed. What the fuck is
> this monkey-ass retarded fucking no-experience
> having stupid lame ass fuck stick prez going to do
> now? Now what? Hello? Anything? All I hear is
> crickets.
>
> Now fucking what you fucking dumb-ass.
>
> Wow, he spent trillions of dollars, he's the
> greatest president ever. He's a genius. Just like
> the broke dick 47% who won't pay their mortgages
> or CC debt or buy cars they can't afford. You must
> be one of those kinds of people and you must think
> you're a genius too.

You're a typical Righturd. Contrary to your party's message, the Economy is MUCH MUCH better than it was when he started. Deal with the upcoming lost and go buy some more guns asshole.

Johnny Galt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Umm the average citizen can still do that. They
> choose not to. There are different views on all
> channels. In fact today, you can get not only the
> viewpoint of Fox, or CNN or your granny, but
> Pintar in Bangladesh, relatively easily.
>
> What you are referring to is the laziness of the
> average person to seek out or understand the
> views. Blaming Fox is kind of childish.
>
>
>
> >
> > Today, too many peope get their continuous news
> > stream from one source, the one that reaffirms
> > their own beliefs. This has caused a
> polarization
> > of the body politic, one that, unfortunately
> for
> > one side, will be resolved by demographics.
>
>
> It isn't as subversive as you seem to believe. My
> polarization doesn't come from my news source. It
> comes from the fact that I do not believe in the
> Left's ideology. I didn't form my political
> beliefs the day Fox news launched. That is
> something that retards who 'Occupy Wall Street'
> think because that is how their beliefs are
> formed, by TV and media. It wasn't as omnipresent
> when I was younger, but you can't explain
> something like that to someone under 27 because
> they know everything, except how to get a decent
> job and be productive. And how to not whine about
> shit all the time.
>
> I don't eat food I don't like, I don't listen to
> news programming that reaffirms shit I don't
> believe in.
>
> No body will ever convince me that fairness can be
> legislated. People need to work to get money to
> pay taxes and contribute.
>
> I know far too many people who won't work. Not who
> can't work, won't work. There is no incentive for
> people who are amenable to a certain standard of
> living to work. For me, living with my parents,
> food stamps and WIC checks are not something I
> will settle for. For MILLIONS of able-bodied,
> entitled, leeches, this is acceptable. About 47%
> of America.
>
> For me, the problem in this country is there are
> WAY too many people who will not work. My company
> has a dozen job openings and I can't get people to
> even show up for their interviews on time.
>
> So fuck the 47%

The problem isn't your principals. It sounds fairly moderate (even though you try and cherry pick the 47% everyone is lazy extreme view; out of polarization frustration no doubt). The problem is that your base is too fucking extreme. Most people can agree on being socially liberal but financially conservative, but your teabagger constituents can't give an inch on shit. How the 1% controls your party is what's fucking insane!

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Galt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Holy moly. The problem is that any fucking
> retard
> > can fucking spend money. Obama is a fucking
> > retard.
>
> Really? George W. Bush was just 4years ago.
> Spent a shitload of money and blew up the house.
> Are you really that dumb?
>
> >
> > If he were a leader he would have a plan for
> AFTER
> > spending all the fucking money.
> >
> > So yes, you are correct, it cost a bunch of
> money
> > but what the fuck? Yes, indeed. What the fuck
> is
> > this monkey-ass retarded fucking no-experience
> > having stupid lame ass fuck stick prez going to
> do
> > now? Now what? Hello? Anything? All I hear is
> > crickets.
> >
> > Now fucking what you fucking dumb-ass.
> >
> > Wow, he spent trillions of dollars, he's the
> > greatest president ever. He's a genius. Just
> like
> > the broke dick 47% who won't pay their
> mortgages
> > or CC debt or buy cars they can't afford. You
> must
> > be one of those kinds of people and you must
> think
> > you're a genius too.
>
> You're a typical Righturd. Contrary to your
> party's message, the Economy is MUCH MUCH better
> than it was when he started. Deal with the
> upcoming lost and go buy some more guns asshole.

How is the economy better again? Will Social Security still go broke in several decades? Yes. Fewer good jobs? Yes. Fewer people working? Yes. Fewer people looking for work? Yes. More jobs over seas? Yes. Companies still raping Americans? Yes.

If you take a loan out for a million dollars, you are not a millionaire

-jg

p.s. Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin' on you?

-
-
-

Johnny Galt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> How is the economy better again? Will Social
> Security still go broke in several decades? Yes.
> Fewer good jobs? Yes. Fewer people working? Yes.
> Fewer people looking for work? Yes. More jobs over
> seas? Yes. Companies still raping Americans? Yes.
>
> If you take a loan out for a million dollars, you
> are not a millionaire

S&P is up, consumer confidence is up, jobs up, manufacturing index up, drilling up, wind/solar way up, petroleum imports down. bin laden dead. unwinding wars. again, he was handed a mountain of shit. that he isn't cleaning it fast enough is a fucked up argument (especially since those in the gop congress are doing everything they can to block him).

Exaggerations Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Galt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Umm the average citizen can still do that. They
> > choose not to. There are different views on all
> > channels. In fact today, you can get not only
> the
> > viewpoint of Fox, or CNN or your granny, but
> > Pintar in Bangladesh, relatively easily.
> >
> > What you are referring to is the laziness of
> the
> > average person to seek out or understand the
> > views. Blaming Fox is kind of childish.
> >
>
> Oh, those lazy people. Thank god you're
> upstanding and moral, and above all of it.
>
>
> >
> >
> > It isn't as subversive as you seem to believe.
>
> From what I read below, it appears it might
> actually be even more subversive than I first
> thought.

Really? Cuz it's plain text right in your face? Plz look up the definition of subversive genius.


>
> > My polarization doesn't come from my news
> source. It
> > comes from the fact that I do not believe in
> the
> > Left's ideology. I didn't form my political
> > beliefs the day Fox news launched. That is
> > something that retards who 'Occupy Wall Street'
> > think because that is how their beliefs are
> > formed, by TV and media. It wasn't as
> omnipresent
> > when I was younger, but you can't explain
> > something like that to someone under 27 because
> > they know everything, except how to get a
> decent
> > job and be productive. And how to not whine
> about
> > shit all the time.
> >
>
> I'm sure you had conservative views well before
> Fox News launched. But your views have become
> more hardened, exaggerated and based more on an
> incessant hammering of certain ideas and concepts.
> Take for example your belief that 47% of the
> country is just looking for a handout.
>

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The 47% is a symbol and an exaggeration of the KINDS of people who borrow too much, get foreclosed on, don't (not can't) work, spend too much and all the while post on facebook about their great lives. I know tons of people like this. They are not nurses or elderly or soldiers. They are broke dick lazy Americans who think it is not fair that they are not making CEO money while working a regular job, so they CHOOSE not to work and they do not need to work for money. Obama gives them money, food, and health care and for shelter they sponge.

>
> > I don't eat food I don't like, I don't listen
> to
> > news programming that reaffirms shit I don't
> > believe in.
> >
>
> You don't listen to news programming that
> contradicts shit you believe in.
>
>

But I hear it all the time. But yes, I do not listen to it, I tune it out. I know it exists though so if I wanted to listen to it, I could. I'm sorry you do not like that I have this freedom.

>
> > No body will ever convince me that fairness can
> be
> > legislated. People need to work to get money to
> > pay taxes and contribute.
>
> This is a false dilemma. Nobody suggested that
> everyone should stop working, stop paying taxes
> and make no contribution. This is just an idea
> being pushed on certain audiences in order to get
> them worked up and angry, so they can become even
> more partisan.
>

Nobody suggests people should murder people, it still happens all the time. There are penalties for murder as well. Where are the punitive measures for leeching from society and refusing to be productive in this country?

>
> >
> > I know far too many people who won't work. Not
> who
> > can't work, won't work. There is no incentive
> for
> > people who are amenable to a certain standard
> of
> > living to work. For me, living with my parents,
> > food stamps and WIC checks are not something I
> > will settle for. For MILLIONS of able-bodied,
> > entitled, leeches, this is acceptable. About
> 47%
> > of America.
>
> You actually know all those people? or does it
> just seem like it should be true because you keep
> seeing examples played over and over again,
> repeated, exaggerated, and repeated again?
>

I know them. And I see them repeated over and over again. The OWS is a prime example. I would have attended but Oh...I was at work. Or buying groceries or putting gas in my car or writing mortgage checks or playing with my kids. Got too much 'sponsibilities to be hanging out in DC for months catching the sights and peeing on storefronts. But hey that's just me. I must not be cool enough to see what a huge contribution to America such a belief system really is. Not working and peeing on other peoples property cuz I can't afford to own a Starbucks.

> I'm guessing you know 2 or 3 people that could
> loosely fit that description, and your perception
> is then compounded because this idea gets repeated
> over and over again.
>

If everyone knows 2 or 3 people like that, that's a tremendous amount of folks.

> Think about how you feel about Unions. I'm sure
> you've always hated unions. You've always felt
> that they were job destroyers, and entitled, and
> all that. Except when it was Unions that the
> Republicans used to coddle in order to get votes,
> years ago. Think hard, did you really always hate
> unions?
>

Not until I fully understood the long-term costs. In theory at a isolated point in time, yes job security like that is nice and company's absolutely rely on labor to make money. But like other kinds of welfare, there is no incentive to excel so people don't.


You have no problem with your tax dollars paying govt pensions? Millions of people getting paid by you for decades because they pushed a pencil from 1970 to 1995? Come mow my lawn then since your such a generous American.



>
> >
> > For me, the problem in this country is there
> are
> > WAY too many people who will not work. My
> company
> > has a dozen job openings and I can't get people
> to
> > even show up for their interviews on time.
>
> What type of jobs are these? If they are $9/hr
> jobs, that has nothing to do with 47% suddenly
> being entitled. That level of job will always
> attract people who also couldn't show up to school
> and will always be an unreliable portion of the
> labor force.
>

Nope. $60-100K IT jobs. But you know what? You have to work and learn and show up and no, you can not work from home because in our experience, it ain't productive

> Your attitude is shaped (distorted) by the outlets
> you choose to get your information from. If you
> don't understand how and why they want to distort
> those views for a portion of society, then ...

They are more distorted by the leftist media. The left refuses to acknowledge there is even a chance that Obama has made any mistakes. Nothing is his fault? He's screwed up nothing? I don't want any part of that dogma.

Riddle me this johnny, would you go to a dentist with no experience? Or a surgeon? Of course not. So why the fuck would you vote someone in to the top executive position in the country, who had ZERO executive experience?

Just because anyone can be president, doesn't mean they should.



> >
> > So fuck the 47%

-jg

p.s. Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin' on you?

-
-
-

Oh and let's put this other bullshit tag line to rest.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obamacare-adds-trillions-deficit/

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

Mitt Romney says 'Obamacare' adds trillions to the deficit


How is it that a law can raise taxes and cut spending, but also add trillions to the deficit?

That was Mitt Romney’s claim after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the core of the health care law on June 28, 2012.

"Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare -- cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion," Romney said. "And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations."

Here, we’re fact-checking Romney’s claim that "Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt." It’s a topic we’ve researched before.

We asked the Romney campaign for their evidence for this statement, but we didn’t hear back.

For claims about laws that are not yet fully enacted, our go-to source is the Congressional Budget Office. It’s a nonpartisan, widely respected agency with an expert staff that generates projections and reports about how proposed laws affect the federal budget.

The Congressional Budget Office is not always right in its projections. In recent years, for example, it overestimated how much it would cost to cover prescription drugs for seniors in Medicare. The program actually came in under projections.

But for claims about deficits, we consider the Congressional Budget Office, often called the CBO, to be the standard by which we fact-check claims.

The CBO said this about the health care law back in 2010: It lowers the deficit, by about $124 billion over 10 years.

And in 2011, when Republicans offered a bill to repeal the health care law, the CBO said that increased the deficit, by about $210 billion over 10 years.

Now, is the CBO infallible? Certainly not. And good questions have been raised about some of the CBO’s methods in accounting for the health care law’s effects. We reported on some those concerns in great detail in a fact-check of statement from U.S. Rep Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. He said the law was "accelerating our country toward bankruptcy." We rated that Mostly False.

The CBO itself acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding its estimates. Its reports regularly warn that uncertainty increases as it makes projections farther into the future.

And, the Supreme Court ruling may change certain elements of the health care law’s costs, especially as it affects Medicaid spending. Medicaid is the joint federal-state health insurance program for the very poor.

A statement on the CBO website on the day of the ruling said, "CBO is in the process of reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision related to the Affordable Care Act to assess the effect on CBO’s projections of federal spending and revenue under current law. We expect that this assessment will probably take some time."

Still, we find no factual basis for Romney’s claim that the law "adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt." We rate his statement False.

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Galt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > How is the economy better again? Will Social
> > Security still go broke in several decades?
> Yes.
> > Fewer good jobs? Yes. Fewer people working?
> Yes.
> > Fewer people looking for work? Yes. More jobs
> over
> > seas? Yes. Companies still raping Americans?
> Yes.
> >
> > If you take a loan out for a million dollars,
> you
> > are not a millionaire
>
> S&P is up,

Due to foreign spending and investments. We live in America, not China.

>consumer confidence is up,

I'd have to check on this.

>jobs up,

Lie.

> manufacturing index up,

By foreign companies in America hiring Americans at lower wages than ever. Awesome

>drilling up,

By China. So you have no problem with America exporting all it's oil instead of using it here? Or with China pulling the oil out of our ground for their use in their country?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-oil-production-gas-prices-high/story?id=16186002#.UIP6cbloOt0


>wind/solar
> way up, petroleum imports down.

Petroleum is down because people have less money to buy expensive gas. Liberals hate looking past step 1.

Step 1. Give people free stuff
Step 2. ????

I assure giving people free stuff has consequences and they are not good.

>bin laden dead.

Awesome. Not is dispute at all. Not really something that affects my voting though.

> unwinding wars. again, he was handed a mountain
> of shit. that he isn't cleaning it fast enough is
> a fucked up argument (especially since those in
> the gop congress are doing everything they can to
> block him).

I would prefer the wars be won, not conceded. I would prefer he demolish the countries we are warring with then prop his feet up and have a smoke. Instead he capitulates which I can't stand.

They way he wars would affect my vote. To me, that is an important Federal dilemma. Not Planned Parenthood or PBS, to me those are ancillary distractions and shit like abortion should be a State issue anyhow not something the Federal govt should be involved in.

-jg

p.s. Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin' on you?

-
-
-

Johnny Galt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brawny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Johnny Galt Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > How is the economy better again? Will Social
> > > Security still go broke in several decades?
> > Yes.
> > > Fewer good jobs? Yes. Fewer people working?
> > Yes.
> > > Fewer people looking for work? Yes. More jobs
> > over
> > > seas? Yes. Companies still raping Americans?
> > Yes.
> > >
> > > If you take a loan out for a million dollars,
> > you
> > > are not a millionaire
> >
> > S&P is up,
>
> Due to foreign spending and investments. We live
> in America, not China.

Who the fuck cares? My 401k has rebounded (you know, the shit that caused all the seniors to hold off on their retirement).. I don't care if penguins from Antarctica are buying WMT, so long as they buy.

>
> >consumer confidence is up,
>
> I'd have to check on this.
>
> >jobs up,
>
> Lie.

+325k. Not spectacular but up none the less.

>
> > manufacturing index up,
>
> By foreign companies in America hiring Americans
> at lower wages than ever. Awesome

Again, who gives a fuck? Our people are employed . Taxes collected. Less dependent on gov't. blah blah

>
> >drilling up,
>
> By China. So you have no problem with America
> exporting all it's oil instead of using it here?
> Or with China pulling the oil out of our ground
> for their use in their country?
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-oil-production-g
> as-prices-high/story?id=16186002#.UIP6cbloOt0

If we're producing shit for x dollars and selling it for x + k dollars then, no, I don't care who buys it. Do you really give a flying fuck?

>
>
> >wind/solar
> > way up, petroleum imports down.
>
> Petroleum is down because people have less money
> to buy expensive gas. Liberals hate looking past
> step 1.

Quite frankly I'm glad gas prices are higher. It'll expedite initiatives into alt energy and shit like increasing gas mileage in existing petroleum based vehicles. If it takes a baseball bat to get people to realize this, I'm all for it.


>
> Step 1. Give people free stuff
> Step 2. ????
>
> I assure giving people free stuff has consequences
> and they are not good.

What the fuck is this about? Sounds like the typical 'safety' argument from the wacko right.

>
> >bin laden dead.
>
> Awesome. Not is dispute at all. Not really
> something that affects my voting though.

Well it sure as hell was the central theme for dragging us into a cascading group of events that caused us 1000's of fatalities, 1T+ war bill, distractions out the wazoo for 10 years......

>
> > unwinding wars. again, he was handed a
> mountain
> > of shit. that he isn't cleaning it fast enough
> is
> > a fucked up argument (especially since those in
> > the gop congress are doing everything they can
> to
> > block him).
>
> I would prefer the wars be won, not conceded. I
> would prefer he demolish the countries we are
> warring with then prop his feet up and have a
> smoke. Instead he capitulates which I can't
> stand.

Here's the shit I don't get. Why do shitards like to bitch and moan about the deficit yet will drop trillions of dollars on wars w/o regard? So they capitulate, BFD??

>
> They way he wars would affect my vote. To me, that
> is an important Federal dilemma. Not Planned
> Parenthood or PBS, to me those are ancillary
> distractions and shit like abortion should be a
> State issue anyhow not something the Federal govt
> should be involved in.

You prefer the way he wars??? seriously? ever consider the alternative? The way he DOESN'T war. Had McCain won, we'd be smack in the middle of Siria, Egypt, and the rest. Fuck that noise.

W.r.t. gas prices being high - this is EXACTLY the type of "regulation" that a good Republican should be for - a voluntary use-based tax - don't use it, don't spend the moeny.

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Galt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > brawny Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Johnny Galt Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > > How is the economy better again? Will
> Social
> > > > Security still go broke in several decades?
> > > Yes.
> > > > Fewer good jobs? Yes. Fewer people working?
> > > Yes.
> > > > Fewer people looking for work? Yes. More
> jobs
> > > over
> > > > seas? Yes. Companies still raping
> Americans?
> > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > If you take a loan out for a million
> dollars,
> > > you
> > > > are not a millionaire
> > >
> > > S&P is up,
> >
> > Due to foreign spending and investments. We
> live
> > in America, not China.
>
> Who the fuck cares? My 401k has rebounded (you
> know, the shit that caused all the seniors to hold
> off on their retirement).. I don't care if
> penguins from Antarctica are buying WMT, so long
> as they buy.
>

This kind of near-sightedness is comical. Ur 401k is fine today, but if you think the debt we have today is not going to affect your 401K 20-30-40 yrs from now, you're naive as fuck. You think when China owns the companies and investments your 401k relies on to pay back the debt we own them on the money we are borrowing today and are not paying back, that that money will be available when you retire?


> >
> > >consumer confidence is up,
> >
> > I'd have to check on this.
> >
> > >jobs up,
> >
> > Lie.
>
> +325k. Not spectacular but up none the less.
>

Again, if I lose 8 million marbles and find 325,000 marbles, the use of the word 'up' is spin and propaganda.


> >
> > > manufacturing index up,
> >
> > By foreign companies in America hiring
> Americans
> > at lower wages than ever. Awesome
>
> Again, who gives a fuck? Our people are employed .
> Taxes collected. Less dependent on gov't. blah
> blah
>

Who gives a fuck? I do. I do not want foreign countries controlling our entire economy.


> >
> > >drilling up,
> >
> > By China. So you have no problem with America
> > exporting all it's oil instead of using it
> here?
> > Or with China pulling the oil out of our ground
> > for their use in their country?
> >
> >
> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-oil-production-g
>
> > as-prices-high/story?id=16186002#.UIP6cbloOt0
>
> If we're producing shit for x dollars and selling
> it for x + k dollars then, no, I don't care who
> buys it. Do you really give a flying fuck?
>

When price is high because of an artificial shortage yes I give a flying fuck about the president allowing that kind of manipulation to affect my bottom line.


> >
> >
> > >wind/solar
> > > way up, petroleum imports down.
> >
> > Petroleum is down because people have less
> money
> > to buy expensive gas. Liberals hate looking
> past
> > step 1.
>
> Quite frankly I'm glad gas prices are higher.
> It'll expedite initiatives into alt energy and
> shit like increasing gas mileage in existing
> petroleum based vehicles. If it takes a baseball
> bat to get people to realize this, I'm all for
> it.
>
>

No doubt. To me the bat analogy should be used across the board. If you can work and won't, I should be allowed to use a baseball bat on your skull as motivation to expedite your job hunt. Don't be arbitrary with your solutions for expediency. Dems love that kind of arbitrary bullshit.



> >
> > Step 1. Give people free stuff
> > Step 2. ????
> >
> > I assure giving people free stuff has
> consequences
> > and they are not good.
>
> What the fuck is this about? Sounds like the
> typical 'safety' argument from the wacko right.
>

It's about shit like welfare where dems think rich people will gladly give up all their money so other people give subsist, because Dems think it's 'fair'. Fuck that childish bullshit.

Welfare, social security, food stamps, Obamacare, these are FUCKING PONZI SCHEMES. I can guarantee that they are not sound long-term solutions.


> >
> > >bin laden dead.
> >
> > Awesome. Not is dispute at all. Not really
> > something that affects my voting though.
>
> Well it sure as hell was the central theme for
> dragging us into a cascading group of events that
> caused us 1000's of fatalities, 1T+ war bill,
> distractions out the wazoo for 10 years......
>

The effect is not a result of the cause but the process. Again, after 9/11 we should have leveled any country with an inkling of involvement. Problem solved. Your bat analogy is again prudent. Clobber those nations to expedite compliance and surrender.


> >
> > > unwinding wars. again, he was handed a
> > mountain
> > > of shit. that he isn't cleaning it fast
> enough
> > is
> > > a fucked up argument (especially since those
> in
> > > the gop congress are doing everything they
> can
> > to
> > > block him).
> >
> > I would prefer the wars be won, not conceded. I
> > would prefer he demolish the countries we are
> > warring with then prop his feet up and have a
> > smoke. Instead he capitulates which I can't
> > stand.
>
> Here's the shit I don't get. Why do shitards like
> to bitch and moan about the deficit yet will drop
> trillions of dollars on wars w/o regard? So they
> capitulate, BFD??


It's about the FEDERAL deficit johnny. Spend all you want all welfare and free healthcare and shit in whatever STATE wants that shit. Gay marriage, abortion, food stamps, blah blah should be handled by the STATES. War for the Feds. If the Feds did not have to feed and cloth a nation of free-loaders there would be more money for war then even Obama could spend.



>
> >
> > They way he wars would affect my vote. To me,
> that
> > is an important Federal dilemma. Not Planned
> > Parenthood or PBS, to me those are ancillary
> > distractions and shit like abortion should be a
> > State issue anyhow not something the Federal
> govt
> > should be involved in.
>
> You prefer the way he wars??? seriously? ever
> consider the alternative? The way he DOESN'T war.
> Had McCain won, we'd be smack in the middle of
> Siria, Egypt, and the rest. Fuck that noise.

He as in whomever was president. I am not a fan of the dink and dunk offense. I would prefer a bat to the skull of the offending nation, again to use your analogy for expediting change.

The bottom line for a lot of the right is that much of what Dems want the Feds to handle and pay for should be State issues. That's what less govt means.

As an example, it doesn't mean less regulation or freedoms, it means people who live in VA should not have to pay Federal taxes to pay for abortions in MA. If you want to have your tax dollars pay for abortions, move to the State where your tax dollars will be used for that.

Everybody wins. There is no valid argument FOR the current use of the Federal govt in it's role today in peoples lives.

-jg

p.s. Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin' on you?

-
-
-

Johnny Galt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brawny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Johnny Galt Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> This kind of near-sightedness is comical. Ur 401k
> is fine today, but if you think the debt we have
> today is not going to affect your 401K 20-30-40
> yrs from now, you're naive as fuck. You think when
> China owns the companies and investments your 401k
> relies on to pay back the debt we own them on the
> money we are borrowing today and are not paying
> back, that that money will be available when you
> retire?
>

China own 1.16T worth of our debt which is actually down from last year (1.32T). Learn the facts before spouting off the standard fox talking point fuck nuts; it really brings out your stupidity.

> >
> > +325k. Not spectacular but up none the less.
> >
>
> Again, if I lose 8 million marbles and find
> 325,000 marbles, the use of the word 'up' is spin
> and propaganda.
>

Seriously? the '+' means it covers the losses PLUS 325k. Fuck you're dumb.


> >
>
> Who gives a fuck? I do. I do not want foreign
> countries controlling our entire economy.
>

Another Faux talking point. Why do you think foreign countries own our economy? What proof do you have? It's patently false and stupid to even consider it.


>
> When price is high because of an artificial
> shortage yes I give a flying fuck about the
> president allowing that kind of manipulation to
> affect my bottom line.

What do you want him to do? Rightards go ape shit when gov't intervene with business. You want him to go and shoot the speculators?

>

> >
>
> No doubt. To me the bat analogy should be used
> across the board. If you can work and won't, I
> should be allowed to use a baseball bat on your
> skull as motivation to expedite your job hunt.
> Don't be arbitrary with your solutions for
> expediency. Dems love that kind of arbitrary
> bullshit.
>

No doubt there are people abusing the system. The poor on welfare, the rich on, I don't know, gas manipulation, rate manipulation, foul accounting practices, the list goes on.


>
> It's about shit like welfare where dems think rich
> people will gladly give up all their money so
> other people give subsist, because Dems think it's
> 'fair'. Fuck that childish bullshit.
>
> Welfare, social security, food stamps, Obamacare,
> these are FUCKING PONZI SCHEMES. I can guarantee
> that they are not sound long-term solutions.

Let's take Obamacare since it's so polarized. Do you agree that we pay when people go to the ER when they don't have insurance? if so, why do you support them NOT having to pay into a universal health insurance to account for this shit (which is fucking expensive).
>
>

>
> The effect is not a result of the cause but the
> process. Again, after 9/11 we should have leveled
> any country with an inkling of involvement.
> Problem solved. Your bat analogy is again prudent.
> Clobber those nations to expedite compliance and
> surrender.

Possibly the dumbest thing ever said. Sadly, it's a typical Rightard response.


>
>
> It's about the FEDERAL deficit johnny. Spend all
> you want all welfare and free healthcare and shit
> in whatever STATE wants that shit. Gay marriage,
> abortion, food stamps, blah blah should be handled
> by the STATES. War for the Feds. If the Feds did
> not have to feed and cloth a nation of
> free-loaders there would be more money for war
> then even Obama could spend.

Possibly the 2nd dumbest thing ever said. You realize the feds give states money right? You still didn't answer my point. Why is it ok to deficit spend on wars but not infrastructure?

>
>
> He as in whomever was president. I am not a fan of
> the dink and dunk offense. I would prefer a bat to
> the skull of the offending nation, again to use
> your analogy for expediting change.
>
> The bottom line for a lot of the right is that
> much of what Dems want the Feds to handle and pay
> for should be State issues. That's what less govt
> means.
>
> As an example, it doesn't mean less regulation or
> freedoms, it means people who live in VA should
> not have to pay Federal taxes to pay for abortions
> in MA. If you want to have your tax dollars pay
> for abortions, move to the State where your tax
> dollars will be used for that.
>
> Everybody wins. There is no valid argument FOR the
> current use of the Federal govt in it's role today
> in peoples lives.

Do yourself a favor and look at the last 3 GOP presidents (GWB, GHB, Reagan) and let me know how the debt faired. This is why I call bullshit. Some how, the GOP has brainwashed that the GOP are so fiscally conservative when the grand puba Ronald 'Motherfucking' Reagan tripled the deficit during his tenure.

China own 1.16T worth of our debt which is actually down from last year (1.32T). Learn the facts before spouting off the standard fox talking point fuck nuts; it really brings out your stupidity.

Sorry..I couldn't bring myself to quote the entire post.

How exactly did our debt to China decrease? Btw..according to WaPo four days ago it was $1.2T.

And our debt to Japan was $1.1T.

This thread cant die soon enough it has reached the highest level of retardation

Obama has done all right by me. Luxury condo under section 8 housing, $400 a month in food stamps, $1,200 in welfare. I havent worked a day in my life and I aint starting now.
Attachments:

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> China own 1.16T worth of our debt which is
> actually down from last year (1.32T). Learn the
> facts before spouting off the standard fox talking
> point fuck nuts; it really brings out your
> stupidity.
>
> Sorry..I couldn't bring myself to quote the entire
> post.
>
> How exactly did our debt to China decrease?
> Btw..according to WaPo four days ago it was
> $1.2T.
>
> And our debt to Japan was $1.1T.


I'm going to withhold the source until I hear what Johnny Galt has to say about this excerpt from an obviously biased source:



"But if you thought China's been doing most of the bankrolling, you might be surprised to learn who really holds our federal mortgage.

Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years.

“It is true that China is the largest foreign owner of our debt,” said Josh Gordon, policy director of the Concord Coalition, a Virginia-based nonprofit that advocates getting the nation’s debt under control. “But the vast majority of our debt is held by us.”

[...]

China has actually decreased its holdings of U.S. debt over the past year, dropping from $1.31 trillion in June 2011 to $1.16 trillion a year later, according to the Treasury Department. Japan holds nearly as much, at $1.12 trillion. Those countries are by far the biggest foreign holders, but dozens of other nations, including Brazil, Russia, Taiwan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom hold trillions more.

Inside the U.S., private investors hold nearly $1 trillion in federal debt, while mutual funds, insurance companies and state and local governments hold nearly double that amount.

Yet China continues to be viewed as the poster child for financing our deficit spending, often demonized as if it is holding our debt over us. Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann joked during her failed campaign for the GOP presidential nomination that when it came to the debt, "Hu's your daddy," a reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao."

Source Withheld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "But if you thought China's been doing most of the
> bankrolling, you might be surprised to learn who
> really holds our federal mortgage.
>
> Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to
> the U.S. government, American investors and future
> retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund
> and pension plans for civil service workers and
> military personnel. China, it turns out, holds
> less than 8 percent of the money our government
> has borrowed over the years.
>
> “It is true that China is the largest foreign
> owner of our debt,” said Josh Gordon, policy
> director of the Concord Coalition, a
> Virginia-based nonprofit that advocates getting
> the nation’s debt under control. “But the vast
> majority of our debt is held by us.”
>
> [...]
>
> China has actually decreased its holdings of U.S.
> debt over the past year, dropping from $1.31
> trillion in June 2011 to $1.16 trillion a year
> later, according to the Treasury Department. Japan
> holds nearly as much, at $1.12 trillion. Those
> countries are by far the biggest foreign holders,
> but dozens of other nations, including Brazil,
> Russia, Taiwan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
> hold trillions more.
>
> Inside the U.S., private investors hold nearly $1
> trillion in federal debt, while mutual funds,
> insurance companies and state and local
> governments hold nearly double that amount.
>
> Yet China continues to be viewed as the poster
> child for financing our deficit spending, often
> demonized as if it is holding our debt over us.
> Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann joked during
> her failed campaign for the GOP presidential
> nomination that when it came to the debt, "Hu's
> your daddy," a reference to Chinese President Hu
> Jintao."


What's not obvious in this discussion of the total amount of our debt held by China is the timing. The larger issue isn't the total, it's the extent to which we've come to rely on them in recent years. That is, while the total may now be slightly less than Japan, most all of that has been purchased since about 2006.

Beyond our more recent dependence, the other primary issues are that, regardless whether they are #1 or #2, they hold enough of our securities that they can affect the market. Should they decide to sell or reduce purchases, then we'd need to find other investors to make up the gap and likely raise rates in order to attract enough investment to do so.

If you actually have any real interest beyond partisan bs, although slightly dated, this study from the Congressional Research Service is a good independent review:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf


"...Treasury data indicated that China’s holdings of U.S. securities have increased much faster than those of any other country. From 2006-2010, China’s holding increased by $912 billion (or 130.4%).

China overtook Japan as the largest holder of U.S. securities in 2009, and,
as June 2010, its holdings were 15.6% higher than that those of Japan. As indicated in Figure 2, as China’s FX reserves have risen rapidly, so has its holdings of U.S. securities."


"From 2002 to 2010, China’s holdings increased by over $1 trillion, which were by far the largest dollar increase in holdings of any country, and accounted for 33% of net new foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities over this time. As indicated in Figure 4, China’s purchases of new Treasury securities over the past three years have been significant, averaging about $224.2 billion per year, compared to an average annual increase of $61.5 billion from 2002 to 2007. China’s
share of foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities rose from 9.6% in 2002 to 26.1% in 2010."

Also, these numbers likely are somewhat understated since in addition to direct purchases they also use third-party intermediaries and purchase via other markets. And the numbers for Japan and most other countries are somewhat over stated since they include purchases by a variety of public and private entities in those countries versus a single party as in China's case.

Interesting too is that China is important enough that it is the ONLY country that, as of May this year, is permitted to deal directly with the US Treasury for securities. The rest all work through various broker banks.

Sugar Daddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What's not obvious in this discussion of the total
> amount of our debt held by China is the timing.

The timing? That it went from ~700B to 1.6T between 2006 and 2010, and then fell back to $1.2T by 2012?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.


> The larger issue isn't the total, it's the extent
> to which we've come to rely on them in recent
> years. That is, while the total may now be
> slightly less than Japan, most all of that has
> been purchased since about 2006.

Most of it was purchased since 2000. Why did you choose 2006? Because it was a dem controlled congress after 2006? hmmmm.

We don't actually "rely" on them. When private investors and the US Government exceed the amount held by BOTH japan and china by a factor of 2, the only power they really have is negligible.


>
> Beyond our more recent dependence, the other
> primary issues are that, regardless whether they
> are #1 or #2, they hold enough of our securities
> that they can affect the market. Should they
> decide to sell or reduce purchases, then we'd need
> to find other investors to make up the gap and
> likely raise rates in order to attract enough
> investment to do so.

That sounds scary! They could affect the market?? Really! I better hate on Obama then! Get real.

If you understand the inter-relationship, rather than the fear tactics being used in this matter, you'd know that China cannot use the debt they hold as a weapon, and in fact if they were to sell off our treasuries it would hurt them as much, if not more than it would hurt us. They buy our treasuries as a form of reserve, as most nations who buy our t-bills. But it also is a way to back-fill excess cash into the economy of the main purchaser of their products. If we don't have the liquidity to buy their cheaply produced gadgets and trinkets, they have 300 million workers who could lose their jobs.

I know, they only tell you the negative stuff so the base can remain riled up and full of fear.


>
> If you actually have any real interest beyond
> partisan bs, although slightly dated, this study
> from the Congressional Research Service is a good
> independent review:
>
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf
>
>
> "...Treasury data indicated that China’s
> holdings of U.S. securities have increased much
> faster than those of any other country. From
> 2006-2010, China’s holding increased by $912
> billion (or 130.4%).
>

Nothing new to me. I didn't just start being "concerned" about the deficit and china owning a portion of it after Obama was elected. I've known about it since the deficit started growing again in 2002. All the Johnny-Come-Latelies" ranting about it now actually proves it is manipulation from a partisan position. The people who are most concerned about this now VOTED FOR BUSH in 2004. It wasn't a problem back then.


> China overtook Japan as the largest holder of U.S.
> securities in 2009, and,
> as June 2010, its holdings were 15.6% higher than
> that those of Japan. As indicated in Figure 2, as
> China’s FX reserves have risen rapidly, so has
> its holdings of U.S. securities."

This is a fact. But it is also highly irrelevant, meaningless, but makes for a good sound bite or way to scare uninitiated fools and partisan followers.

>
>
> "From 2002 to 2010, China’s holdings increased
> by over $1 trillion, which were by far the largest
> dollar increase in holdings of any country, and

There you go. Don't let that little tidbit of info slip past you.


> accounted for 33% of net new foreign holdings of
> U.S. Treasury securities over this time. As
> indicated in Figure 4, China’s purchases of new
> Treasury securities over the past three years have
> been significant, averaging about $224.2 billion
> per year, compared to an average annual increase
> of $61.5 billion from 2002 to 2007. China’s
> share of foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury
> securities rose from 9.6% in 2002 to 26.1% in
> 2010."

Please note that 26.1% is the figure for Treasury Securities, but it is only 8% of total US public debt. In 2001, China owned 6% of total US Debt.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

The CBO has summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.

>
> Also, these numbers likely are somewhat
> understated since in addition to direct purchases
> they also use third-party intermediaries and
> purchase via other markets. And the numbers for
> Japan and most other countries are somewhat over
> stated since they include purchases by a variety
> of public and private entities in those countries
> versus a single party as in China's case.

That is trying to obfuscate things. China is a command-economy. Deng Xiao on Mainstreet Beijing isn't buying securities. Mr. Yamamoto on Mainstreet Tokyo, is. They are trying to make it seem like China's debt ownership is understated and Japan's is overstate by confusing you with the facts.

>
> Interesting too is that China is important enough
> that it is the ONLY country that, as of May this
> year, is permitted to deal directly with the US
> Treasury for securities. The rest all work
> through various broker banks.

Yes, China has their own terminal with which to PURCHASE treasuries directly FROM the U.S. Treasury Department. But what they forgot to mention is that China cannot SELL those treasuries directly back to the U.S. Treasury, because it doesn't work that way. They still have to sell to a willing buyer on the commercial market (broker banks). I know, it's all in the details. They like to leave a few out, lest you not be as scared.

Source Withheld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sugar Daddy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > What's not obvious in this discussion of the
> total
> > amount of our debt held by China is the timing.
>
>
> The timing? That it went from ~700B to 1.6T
> between 2006 and 2010, and then fell back to $1.2T
> by 2012?
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at.
>
>
> > The larger issue isn't the total, it's the
> extent
> > to which we've come to rely on them in recent
> > years. That is, while the total may now be
> > slightly less than Japan, most all of that has
> > been purchased since about 2006.
>
> Most of it was purchased since 2000. Why did you
> choose 2006? Because it was a dem controlled
> congress after 2006? hmmmm.
>
> We don't actually "rely" on them. When private
> investors and the US Government exceed the amount
> held by BOTH japan and china by a factor of 2, the
> only power they really have is negligible.
>
>
> >
> > Beyond our more recent dependence, the other
> > primary issues are that, regardless whether
> they
> > are #1 or #2, they hold enough of our
> securities
> > that they can affect the market. Should they
> > decide to sell or reduce purchases, then we'd
> need
> > to find other investors to make up the gap and
> > likely raise rates in order to attract enough
> > investment to do so.
>
> That sounds scary! They could affect the market??
> Really! I better hate on Obama then! Get real.
>
> If you understand the inter-relationship, rather
> than the fear tactics being used in this matter,
> you'd know that China cannot use the debt they
> hold as a weapon, and in fact if they were to sell
> off our treasuries it would hurt them as much, if
> not more than it would hurt us. They buy our
> treasuries as a form of reserve, as most nations
> who buy our t-bills. But it also is a way to
> back-fill excess cash into the economy of the main
> purchaser of their products. If we don't have the
> liquidity to buy their cheaply produced gadgets
> and trinkets, they have 300 million workers who
> could lose their jobs.
>
> I know, they only tell you the negative stuff so
> the base can remain riled up and full of fear.
>
>
> >
> > If you actually have any real interest beyond
> > partisan bs, although slightly dated, this
> study
> > from the Congressional Research Service is a
> good
> > independent review:
> >
> > http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf
> >
> >
> > "...Treasury data indicated that China’s
> > holdings of U.S. securities have increased much
> > faster than those of any other country. From
> > 2006-2010, China’s holding increased by $912
> > billion (or 130.4%).
> >
>
> Nothing new to me. I didn't just start being
> "concerned" about the deficit and china owning a
> portion of it after Obama was elected. I've known
> about it since the deficit started growing again
> in 2002. All the Johnny-Come-Latelies" ranting
> about it now actually proves it is manipulation
> from a partisan position. The people who are most
> concerned about this now VOTED FOR BUSH in 2004.
> It wasn't a problem back then.
>
>
> > China overtook Japan as the largest holder of
> U.S.
> > securities in 2009, and,
> > as June 2010, its holdings were 15.6% higher
> than
> > that those of Japan. As indicated in Figure 2,
> as
> > China’s FX reserves have risen rapidly, so
> has
> > its holdings of U.S. securities."
>
> This is a fact. But it is also highly irrelevant,
> meaningless, but makes for a good sound bite or
> way to scare uninitiated fools and partisan
> followers.
>
> >
> >
> > "From 2002 to 2010, China’s holdings
> increased
> > by over $1 trillion, which were by far the
> largest
> > dollar increase in holdings of any country, and
>
> There you go. Don't let that little tidbit of
> info slip past you.
>
>
> > accounted for 33% of net new foreign holdings
> of
> > U.S. Treasury securities over this time. As
> > indicated in Figure 4, China’s purchases of
> new
> > Treasury securities over the past three years
> have
> > been significant, averaging about $224.2
> billion
> > per year, compared to an average annual
> increase
> > of $61.5 billion from 2002 to 2007. China’s
> > share of foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury
> > securities rose from 9.6% in 2002 to 26.1% in
> > 2010."
>
> Please note that 26.1% is the figure for Treasury
> Securities, but it is only 8% of total US public
> debt. In 2001, China owned 6% of total US Debt.
>
> Here's an interesting tidbit:
>
> The CBO has summarized the cause of change between
> its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion
> cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the
> actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that
> occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt
> increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and
> slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by
> $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion
> higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to
> legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27%
> to economic and technical factors. Of the latter,
> 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.
>
> >
> > Also, these numbers likely are somewhat
> > understated since in addition to direct
> purchases
> > they also use third-party intermediaries and
> > purchase via other markets. And the numbers
> for
> > Japan and most other countries are somewhat
> over
> > stated since they include purchases by a
> variety
> > of public and private entities in those
> countries
> > versus a single party as in China's case.
>
> That is trying to obfuscate things. China is a
> command-economy. Deng Xiao on Mainstreet Beijing
> isn't buying securities. Mr. Yamamoto on
> Mainstreet Tokyo, is. They are trying to make it
> seem like China's debt ownership is understated
> and Japan's is overstate by confusing you with the
> facts.
>
> >
> > Interesting too is that China is important
> enough
> > that it is the ONLY country that, as of May
> this
> > year, is permitted to deal directly with the US
> > Treasury for securities. The rest all work
> > through various broker banks.
>
> Yes, China has their own terminal with which to
> PURCHASE treasuries directly FROM the U.S.
> Treasury Department. But what they forgot to
> mention is that China cannot SELL those treasuries
> directly back to the U.S. Treasury, because it
> doesn't work that way. They still have to sell to
> a willing buyer on the commercial market (broker
> banks). I know, it's all in the details. They
> like to leave a few out, lest you not be as
> scared.


LOL. You really are a dumb fucking asshole.

First, I don't know where you're getting the "Obama" bullshit. I said absolutely nothing about Obama or anyone else, nor was there anything even remotely partisan in my post other than to say that if you wanted an objective source, then the CRS report was a good review of the issue. Do you know what CRS is? Yeah, I thought not. lol

I got 2006 from the QUOTE in the report dumbshit. See the two little marks at the start of the paragraph that talks about the increase from 2006-2010? That's what those mean.

It's a fucking CRS report idiot. It's not some ThinkProgress or Heritage bullshit. It's also not obfuscating anything. They're not confusing me at all although you seem to be. There's a distinct difference between reporting Japan's holdings as a total versus China's given that the latter is held by a single entity which can act over those holdings as they may.

The point of my post was that total is not the best measure given that most of it has come recently and that we're relying on them being there to take up that level of our debt. And increasingly so as our debt issuances increase.

WTF are you talking about selling back to the Treasury. That doesn't even make sense. lol They don't need to sell to the Treasury. They don't need to sell at all to potentially affect markets. We do need them to keep buying. In fact, we need them and more.

Last, I'm not "scared." No place in my post did I indicate that I was "scared." If you'd pull your pinhead out of your own partisan ass for a minute and stop trying to cast everything as being against our precious leader then you might actually learn something. As it stands you're just another partisan dumbfuck pretending like they know more than they do.

I think the point of this Faux news of 'China' owning the US crap is just that. Crap... spread by sources like Fox to it's gullible minions to parrot.

Jesus Fucking Christ lol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> LOL. You really are a dumb fucking asshole.

Yes. Yes, I am.

>
> First, I don't know where you're getting the
> "Obama" bullshit. I said absolutely nothing about
> Obama or anyone else, nor was there anything even
> remotely partisan in my post

>> Sugar Daddy Wrote:
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What's not obvious in this discussion of the total
>> amount of our debt held by China is the timing.

Was I not supposed to hear that dog whistle? What else would you have meant by "the timing"?


>> Sugar Daddy Wrote:
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Beyond our more recent dependence, the other
>> primary issues are that, regardless whether they
>> are #1 or #2, they hold enough of our securities
>> that they can affect the market. Should they
>> decide to sell or reduce purchases, then we'd need
>> to find other investors to make up the gap and
>> likely raise rates in order to attract enough
>> investment to do so.

This is all about Obama. Every bit of this is a message you've consumed. The point of the message is that we are in a very dire financial circumstance because of the enormous amounts of debt. The only answer, of course, is we have to vote for Romney, or we are doomed.

If you don't understand that, then you aren't a partisan, and I apologize for inferring that from your comments. But then that could only mean you are a witless and hapless victim of campaign messaging. You aren't trying to write negative things about Obama, you are simply reacting to the fear message coming out of the Romney campaign.


> other than to say
> that if you wanted an objective source, then the
> CRS report was a good review of the issue. Do you
> know what CRS is? Yeah, I thought not. lol
>

Golly. No, I don't know what CRS is. I wish you would explain it to me.

So you really didn't want to paint a picture of dire financial doom that only a vote for Romney can ameliorate?



> I got 2006 from the QUOTE in the report dumbshit.
> See the two little marks at the start of the
> paragraph that talks about the increase from
> 2006-2010? That's what those mean.
>

oh! That's what those mean!


> It's a fucking CRS report idiot. It's not some
> ThinkProgress or Heritage bullshit. It's also not
> obfuscating anything. They're not confusing me at
> all although you seem to be. There's a distinct
> difference between reporting Japan's holdings as a
> total versus China's given that the latter is held
> by a single entity which can act over those
> holdings as they may.
>

Ok. So Japan owning debt isn't as bad, because it is held by more than one japanese entity? China's is bad because it is held by a single entity? Still not following you. I must be an idiot.

> The point of my post was that total is not the
> best measure given that most of it has come
> recently and that we're relying on them being
> there to take up that level of our debt. And
> increasingly so as our debt issuances increase.
>

We aren't relying on them as our sole purchaser of debt. Although, it is a good thing that we have a symbiotic relationship with China, in that they need a place to park the vast amounts of money they take in, and we need the liquidity to keep buying the stuff they produce. See the circular flow of money going on there?

There really is no threat here. The threat is actually if the Right-Wing has their way and drastically reduces spending, which would break that cycle.


> WTF are you talking about selling back to the
> Treasury. That doesn't even make sense. lol

You brought up the fact that the Chinese Central Bank has been given special access. This canard is a big deal to the right. It is a sign, in their minds, of the critical nature of our dire spending and debt problems.

I just mentioned the other half of the equation, that while China has direct purchasing power of T-bills, nobody can sell back to the treasury directly. They forget to mention that part when trying to whip of the fear, but it is very important to know all the facts, and not just hear only the first part and then react with outrage and indignation about how the chinese are going to ruin our economy.

> They
> don't need to sell to the Treasury. They don't
> need to sell at all to potentially affect markets.
> We do need them to keep buying. In fact, we need
> them and more.
>

If they don't buy, someone else will. That's the great thing about the markets. Fox trumpets this message about China day in and day out, but there's 180 other nations who need to park reserve money somewhere, there's pension funds, investment trusts, corporations with silly amounts of cash on hand, and all kinds of other buyers of our debt.


> Last, I'm not "scared." No place in my post did I
> indicate that I was "scared." If you'd pull your
> pinhead out of your own partisan ass for a minute
> and stop trying to cast everything as being
> against our precious leader then you might

Who is precious leader? Is your name Golum?

> actually learn something. As it stands you're
> just another partisan dumbfuck pretending like
> they know more than they do.

I should stop pretending to know more than I do. Thanks for the advice, Professor Buchanan.

brawny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the point of this Faux news of 'China'
> owning the US crap is just that. Crap... spread by
> sources like Fox to it's gullible minions to
> parrot.


Obviously.

Look at the reaction of Sugar Daddy/Johnny Galt. He got pissed when I explained the facts to him. I am a dumb fucking asshole for ruining his little hate party. Then he had to backpedal and claim that he wasn't trying to perpetuate the tired argument that it is reckless and irresponsible for Obama to be giving China so much power by spending so much.

Even though he started out by saying it was about the *timing*, as in, right now when *you know who* is in office. I guess I wasn't supposed to hear that dog whistle?

This is how it always goes, though. A Fox News or Rush Limbaugh fan has heard a message over and over again, so he tries to sound smart by telling me all about the dangers of fiscal policy and what not, I explain the reality based on real figures and actual knowledge of finance that I gained from going to school and years of experience, he then gets angry and tells me I'm fucking retarded. It always plays out that way. I'm either retarded or a fucking liberal.

Oh, and by the way, I'm neither. My IQ is well above 70, and I'm not at all liberal. But it is very satisfying when some couch expert loses his shit after having things explained to him.

The source of the article that explains how the Chinese don't really own all the debt and it isn't a big deal is ... FOX NEWS.

I guess they know the old men and Navy officers who watch their cable channel will never see this, since they have trouble with the interwebz. They can spew their vitriol on the TV since they all know how to use "the clicker", and then tell a little bit of truth online where it won't be seen by the base.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/who-do-owe-most-that-16-trillion-to-hint-it-isnt-china/