#imWithHer

[Darbhinder]

of course you are with her.

Your tongue is so far up her ass you would sustain injuries if she ever got to far away......

Kind of like the media.....

You really need to learn to write above a 5th grade level.

Start with your and you're and to and too. Maybe people would take your comments more seriously. Just a thought.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

LOL not even close. It's not just the GOP guy. Remember it was the DEMOCRATS who have been protecting the 0.01%....selling them the right to write HC reform so they can get stinkin' rich.

It's been DEMOCRATS who have been protecting Monsanto, Sachs and Too big to fail.

They had plenty of opportunity to shit on the 0.01%....but they sold out.



And how is voting for Clinton even remotely close to favoring America's Middle class over the 0.01%?

Are you on DMT or some shit?

The tide is turning. This is it. Be on the right side of history.

 

[Liar]

As BND says, we're not voting for a candidate, and on that point I agree with him.

We need a new system, not rigged by establishment parties. Something that actually represents the will of the people, and not a Coke vs. Pepsi approach. Which is the lesser of two evils?

Neither. Both will rot your teeth.

It's not Coke v Pepsi tho. It's Coke v sulfuric acid. Rot your teeth, or shit out what once was your intestines.

If everything Hilary's detractors say about her is 100% is true, the choice would be a scheming, hawkish, Wall Street coddling status quo elitist, or a willfully ignorant, comically inexperienced, unhinged man-baby.

Choose your head of state.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The tide is turning. This is it.

LOL..........sure it is

http://i.imgur.com/FMlaz5Q.jpg

Be on the right side of history.

And the right side would be???

The 0.01%'s golden puppet in a pant suit?

LOL drink up buddy....
http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Kool-aid-man-del0311-lg.jpg

 

[Wrong Element]

#ImNotWithHim

 

[Adre]

#ImNotWithHim

^^^^Exactly this.

 

[BotanyBoy]

#ImNotWithHim

Totally.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to start pretending Hillary is some fucking saint here to save the heart and soul of America and it's working class citizenry.

Because she's not, she's Bush in a pantsuit. She'll war it up, send as many jobs to the 3rd world as possible and sell us out to the highest bidder just as fast as she can.

 

[richard_daily]

It will not be accomplished by electing a President from the Democratic Party alone.

It will be accomplished by ending the 60 vote chokehold of the GOP in the Senate, continuing to push for aggressive public policy that favors America's Middle Class over the 0.01%, participating in Our Revolution, supporting groups like US PIRG, and yes by voting for the Democratic nominee in this Presidential election.

Why?

Because it is about the public policy and not just about the candidate.

Ok, so not voting for Hilary is ok then... I'm glad. Instead, I'll vote for actual left wing candidates instead of the right wing demagogue the Democrats are passing off as "progressive" this time around.

Thanks for letting me know.

 

[richard_daily]

It's not Coke v Pepsi tho. It's Coke v sulfuric acid. Rot your teeth, or shit out what once was your intestines.

If everything Hilary's detractors say about her is 100% is true, the choice would be a scheming, hawkish, Wall Street coddling status quo elitist, or a willfully ignorant, comically inexperienced, unhinged man-baby.

Choose your head of state.

I abstain.

Both are poor choices. A pox on both houses.

Give me a candidate that stands for the people and true democratic principals, or I won't vote for them. I'm through with this "lesser evil" bullshit that the Democrats keep peddling as progress.

We have had Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.

Three of the most mediocre candidates that have ever been nominated for president of the US.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Because the Democratic party's platform now reflects an agenda that advocates for the middle class ($15.00 min wage) and the health of our people (Medicare for all) and our future with an educated citizenry (no tuition for students whose families make less than $125K per year) among other important and meaningful policy positions, #imWithHer.

You clearly do not understand the difference between MANDATING an end to wealth inequality and CREATING a strong, broad based economy, including once again becoming a major exporting country (not going to happen for a host of reasons BEYOND any politician's control), that would actually ERADICATE wealth inequality.

But that's okay. Most Democratic office holders don't understand it either, including those who helped create the housing bubble that fueled the very financial collapse that you seem to think President Obama repaired.

Proving once again:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/60/cd/52/60cd52a49356a28eb8b885142159f3df.jpg

 

[Liar]

I abstain.

Both are poor choices. A pox on both houses.

Well, you'll be forcefed one anyway. If you don't want a say which, that's your right.

 

[richard_daily]

Well, you'll be forcefed one anyway. If you don't want a say which, that's your right.

Yes, and the fact that the entire process under a two party system is undemocratic and rigged is why I have no interest in voting for either.

Let the cards fall where they may. I don't see either as being any worse than the other on anything except gun control (trump advantage) and woman's abortion rights (clinton advantage).

And both are just pandering on those points anyways.

You keep accepting the stuff they shove down your mouth, and saying "thank you" if you want. I'm on hunger strike.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, and the fact that the entire process under a two party system is undemocratic and rigged is why I have no interest in voting for either.

Let the cards fall where they may. I don't see either as being any worse than the other on anything except gun control (trump advantage) and woman's abortion rights (clinton advantage).

And both are just pandering on those points anyways.

You keep accepting the stuff they shove down your mouth, and saying "thank you" if you want. I'm on hunger strike.

http://66.media.tumblr.com/44a68305fa3bbb8c6832bbf2090be1a7/tumblr_n0nl0mEH5n1s9rrcgo1_400.gif

 

[snugglestruggle]

In the end Bernie kissed her ass and forgot how unqualified he said she is. He's a worm.

The Irony is he was far more effective in attacking Hillary for being corrupt.

How is a plutocrat, who is completely and totally owned by corporate america, going to "pull us out" of a mess that is wholly of their making?

Clinton is not Obama, and Obama has been a let-down on many fronts.

She botched her time at the state department, and she will go which ever way the political winds blow. She was against gay marriage until it would have been political suicide for her not to be. She was for the TPP (which would be as disastrous for the americna worker as NAFTA and the FTAA), until just a few weeks ago.

She used to be for single payer health care... now she's "too pragmatic" for it.

She is an opportunist who will do anything to get elected. She doesn't care about the american people. She cares about herself.

What is she going to do to end poverty in the US? What is she going to do about her foreign affairs messes? What will she do to fix the economy?

Just like Trump, she's full of promises, but weak on policy... her own party sees that, as evidenced in internal emails that were leaked last week.

She is one of the weakest presidential candidates in modern times... Trump is the other one.

Say what you want about Trump, atleast he says what's on his mind absent a filter. Unlike Hillary who takes every position.

Hillary Clinton is in favor of a 500% increase in Syrian refugees coming into the country.

Yeahhhh, let's vote for her!

Bring in MOAR

Another meaningful policy position is the breaking up of the "too big to fail" banks as well as a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act. It is not about Hillary. #iamWithHer because of this policy position (and others) of the party that were instilled because I and 13 million others supported Bernie.

And I will continue to support the movement by participating in "Our Revolution" which has a stated purpose of transforming American politics to make our political and economic systemsonce again responsive to the needs of working families.

So you're voting for Trump, because he has said Glass Steagall needs to be reinstituted and made stronger.

http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Hills-Bullshit-copy.jpg?resize=477%2c600



http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Driving-Miss-Crazy-copy.jpg?resize=580%2c435



http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Bills-Girls-copy.jpg?resize=580%2c459

LOL..........sure it is

http://i.imgur.com/FMlaz5Q.jpg



And the right side would be???

The 0.01%'s golden puppet in a pant suit?

LOL drink up buddy....
http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Kool-aid-man-del0311-lg.jpg

There's room on that Jacket for more graft, not to mention all that Mack truck ass space that's available.

 

[pete]

How is a plutocrat, who is completely and totally owned by corporate america, going to "pull us out" of a mess that is wholly of their making?

Clinton is not Obama, and Obama has been a let-down on many fronts.

She botched her time at the state department, and she will go which ever way the political winds blow. She was against gay marriage until it would have been political suicide for her not to be. She was for the TPP (which would be as disastrous for the americna worker as NAFTA and the FTAA), until just a few weeks ago.

She used to be for single payer health care... now she's "too pragmatic" for it.

She is an opportunist who will do anything to get elected. She doesn't care about the american people. She cares about herself.

What is she going to do to end poverty in the US? What is she going to do about her foreign affairs messes? What will she do to fix the economy?

Just like Trump, she's full of promises, but weak on policy... her own party sees that, as evidenced in internal emails that were leaked last week.

She is one of the weakest presidential candidates in modern times... Trump is the other one.

word

not to mention that it wasn't obama or his policies or his administration amaden? please) that turned the recession around, it was primarily ben bernanke and the fed's monetary policy. the bailouts and tarp program ere already underway from bush. arguably, obama stalled the recovery by pushing for obamacare and instilling doubt & fear in the business world

 

[BotanyBoy]

There's room on that Jacket for more graft, not to mention all that Mack truck ass space that's available.

Oh it's all for sale!!!

Shit I should see how much it would cost to put my company logo back there for a day.

arguably, obama stalled the recovery by pushing for obamacare and instilling doubt & fear in the business world

LIAR LIAR RACIST BIGOT!!!

Obama was perfection made flesh, now say it or you hate black people!!!

 

[eyerami]

Oh it's all for sale!!!

Shit I should see how much it would cost to put my company logo back there for a day.

https://imghaven.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/wannaberus-39k.jpg

 

[Saint Peter]

https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isexup.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2Fdetail%2F2.jpg&sp=b2812aca4cdd884e174a891bce86b4dd

.....

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Most Democratic office holders don't understand it either, including those who helped create the housing bubble that fueled the very financial collapse that you seem to think President Obama repaired.

If you really believe this then there is sincerely no hope for you.

If you believe that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for the practice of giving AAA ratings to subprime mortgages and then bundling and selling them as a solid investment product knowing that they were a shitty investment, and then betting that there would be a collapse ...

But really you blame the CRA? Wow. It is OK. I still believe that you have the right to vote.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If you really believe this then there is sincerely no hope for you.

If you believe that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for the practice of giving AAA ratings to subprime mortgages and then bundling and selling them as a solid investment product knowing that they were a shitty investment, and then betting that there would be a collapse ...

But really you blame the CRA? Wow. It is OK. I still believe that you have the right to vote.

I see you focused on my throwaway when my main point was your obvious ignorance of how economics actually work versus government giveaways as "lasting" mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth.

Besides, I didn't say one damn thing about the CRA. I simply said that the housing bubble was, in large part, a political creation by Democrats (and admittedly no small number of Republicans). Most of that creation was Congressional amendments to the CRA during the Clinton and Bush administrations many years after its original passage. Nor did I say that Wall Street investment bankers and non-CRA regulated mortgage lenders did not play their own key roles in the fiasco.

Why so testy?

Let's get back to how raising the minimum wage, Medicare for all and free college tuition for low-income families is going to result in lasting wealth equality regardless of whether or not the economy is strong enough to support such government charity. This is where you jumped the shark.

Care to revisit those three elements and their force, sustainability and general relationships in a free market economy?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Let's get back to how raising the minimum wage, Medicare for all and free college tuition for low-income families is going to result in lasting wealth equality regardless of whether or not the economy is strong enough to support such government charity. This is where you jumped the shark.

Care to revisit those three elements and their force, sustainability and general relationships in a free market economy?

Uhhhhhh you just get rid of free markets and nationalize everything. BOOM! all problems solved.

HA!! Beat that logic!!

 

[Ishmael]

If you really believe this then there is sincerely no hope for you.

If you believe that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for the practice of giving AAA ratings to subprime mortgages and then bundling and selling them as a solid investment product knowing that they were a shitty investment, and then betting that there would be a collapse ...

But really you blame the CRA? Wow. It is OK. I still believe that you have the right to vote.

First of all, the CRA was the genesis of all that followed. The Col. is correct in his assessment and verification of de Tocqueville's observations.

Swerving in a new direction. You are supporting a party that has made its objective to give citizenship to EVERY illegal. Why? They are uneducated, unskilled, and unhealthy. Their very presence here is redundant. Technology, especially robotics, is accelerating to the point that most of the jobs they might fulfill are going to be gone. They will become nothing more than welfare recipients and voters to sustain their parasitic life style.

But you, along with many others, are going to vote your feelings, and your genitals, to support a criminal. Which, quite frankly, makes you nothing more than a criminal yourself.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

Where, praytell, did the impetus originate (inside pun intended) to make sub-prime loans, at all?

How were they approved to be bundled and securitized?

What quasi-governmental agency(ies) wrote the underwriting guidelines, accepted the paper and DID THE ACTUAL BUNDLING?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Let's get back to how raising the minimum wage, Medicare for all and free college tuition for low-income families is going to result in lasting wealth equality regardless

Super.

Raising the minimum wage puts direct pressure on capitalist fundamental class process. Basically stated, wages represent the necessary value derived from commodity creation for the person creating the value to be able to continue to recreate the conditions that allow them to continue to create value, ie. paying people enough to show backup at work. By legislating the baseline for the split between necessary and surplus value (where surplus is defined as the amount of value created over and above the value necessary to pay them) it reduces the amount of surplus available to be appropriated and distributed by the capitalists. It also means that the necessary value paid to the person creating the commodity starts to approach the level of providing them with some discretionary income. Having discretionary income is one of the hallmarks of being in the middle class. So if you are an advocate for meaningful public policy that is aimed at improving the plight of the middle class, there pretty much is no better public policy at this time. (Of course that does not mean a minimum wage of $100. So before any dopes want to go there just shut it).

""Medicare for all" is a euphemism for universal healthcare, or more precisely stated providing for a public option for when the market for healthcare fails. Healthcare is a unique commodity. It is unique, in one respect among many, in that the market does not adequately describe its distribution. Toothpaste distribution, however, is perfectly described by the market. You may have tarter control, extra whitening, sensitive, extra minty or complete. Healthcare distribution, however, is typically described by an inverse demand curve where the willingness and ability to buy (the defi ition of demand) are dissociative. So, the free market is not a credible solution to the distribution of the scarcity of healthcare and therefore an alternative must be found. Since all humans will in fact require healthcare it follows that a non-market, or at least a regulated market solution, is necessary. And so it follows that a Universal Healthcare, public option or ""Medicare for all" public policy approach is warranted.

A well educated citizenry is actually an incredibly interesting good, because it is a public good. A decent working definition of a public good is: " a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization." Another definition that is also very interesting is: "public goods are "nonrivalrous" and "nonexcludable." National defense, sewer systems, public parks and other basic societal goods can all be considered public goods." So I suppose strictly speaking a well educated citizenry is not "nonrivalrous" on the labor market in the sense that if I am consuming your labor, someone else may not. But similarly if I have the best picnic spot in the park you may not have it, simultaneously. In any event, $125,000.00 does not seem all that "low-income" to me. Again this is a public policy initiative geared towards establishing a bottom line for the Middle Class where we invest in the education of the citizenry to "provide without profit to all members of a society" educated people. Those educated people may be the workers for the next set of capitalists to employ (exploit), they may be the teachers that educate the next generation or the next generation of capitalists themselves.

Now, as to how this results in lasting wealth equality, that remains to be seen. However, I will argue that there is significant evidence that there is a more general prosperity in the US when a Democrat is in the White House. At least in my lifetime. I am 47 years old. The US Presidents in my lifetime have been: Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. The reason that there is a growing middle class and a more general prosperity when there is a Democrat in the WH (at least since I have been on the planet) is because the public policy lead by a Democrat is focused on (i) moving the line in favor of the laborer when it comes to necessary labor; (ii) acknowledging that the market is an inefficient and ineffective mechanism for distributing health care necessary for a healthy population; and (iii) recognizing that educating the citizenry so that there is a significant and technically well-educated labor pool is critical to the advancement of American industry.

So there you have it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Where, praytell, did the impetus originate (inside pun intended) to make sub-prime loans, at all?

How were they approved to be bundled and securitized?

What quasi-governmental agency(ies) wrote the underwriting guidelines, accepted the paper and DID THE ACTUAL BUNDLING?

To a large extent all three of those questions are answered by the bipartisan passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Under the legislation enacted in November of 1999, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate after decades of having been restricted from such practices by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Furthermore, it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies.[1] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The movie The Big Short does an excellent job of showing how it was thought that the housing market was essentially bullet proof to begin with and that the bundling of hundreds of sub-prime mortgages were believed not to appreciably increase the risk of the bundled security offering, particularly when intermingled with legitimate AAA rated loans. It was also alleged in the film that the ratings services like Moody's and Standard and Poors were irresponsibly deferential to their investment banking clients' desires rather than to their "public responsibility" of objective analysis and appropriate rating (i.e. - who wrote the check for the rating service being offered?).

Essentially, the investment banks were free to bundle and sell mortgages however they wished and the ratings services kept the value of these bonds and securities inflated thus magnifying the carnage when the final reckoning came.