We can lay a lot of this trouble at the feet of Obama & his historic nightmare of Obamacare which has killed jobs and forced employers into difficult positions about laying off employees and using temp and part time labor. It was bound to happen and has been festering for 5 long years.
Dodie, Obama and his minions have been blaming GW for their troubles for 7 long years. You’ve got to be kidding me. By the way, Progressivism is a mental disease.
Agent, if you don’t mind can you provide data for your claims about Obama and the economy?
You state he has killed jobs. Let’s compare him to your last Republican president since you brought up Bush out of nowhere. Although it makes no sense, I will simple use the start and end of their terms. The crash of course happened under Bush, and affected Obama’s numbers significantly. Job losses for example, make no sense to apply to Obama’s numbers in the first months of his presidency, but for the sake of simplicity I will use those numbers, because they still destroy your argument.
In Bush’s term total jobs (in thousands) increased by 4,540 in 8 years; in 7 years under Obama they have increased by 8,289. That is a total increase of about 3% during Bush’s presidency, and 5.8% in Obama’s, with a year to go, and the #s from the crash applied to Obama. In 7 years Obama has created a net increase of 183% as many jobs as during Bush’s 8 years. If you look at total nonfarm payroll, which economists usually see as a better gauge of the economy on a whole the change is over 800% for Obama.
Unemployment under Bush increased by 86% during his term, it has dropped by almost 40% during Obama’s term.
Again, all of that is using Obama’s start as the beginning of his numbers, which there is actually no rational argument for doing. If you do even 2 extra months for Bush he had net negative job “growth” compared to Obama’s growth.
Of course, you also claim it is because people have part-time jobs, which is, of course, false, so I will stop you before that rant. The total average number of hours worked has increased by about 2% under Obama for the period they have data for.
I cannot wait to hear your data-driven reply to this.
Stating numbers is not stating laws that cause numbers.
We can weigh the ACA, and we have as to the affect on jobs, whether CBO or other companies. They all agree there will be an affect it is just the degree.
So for example, and you admitted this:
Saying that Bush was president and a recession happened, does not link him to the recession.
You then look back and find out what pressured companies to give loans.
WAMU for example was allowed to expand only after they received benefits from giving more low income loans to increase their CRA rating. This means while not all loans were CRA, and not all CRA loans failed, they only expanded capital after this point into risky territory due to CRA regulations. We then ask why? Why did the CRA finally kick in?
Could it be the lawsuit filed in part by Obama against Citibank for redlining against low income borrowers? With the basis being CRA?
Could it be Clinton, hammering home the same in the 90’s?
When you look at the CRA ratings, and the fact that in order to expand capital they needed to have a high one, and then you look at the commitments in the 2000’s, it becomes clear what happened. Every bank that made those commitments either failed or nearly failed.
It was part of getting ready for a merger. I have said before the pressure caused firms to make bad moves before they could merge or make capital available on a low cost basis. This is analysis UW.
They were not the only ones. The CRA and democrats are all over why these loans failed.
Look at the CRA rating for WAMU before the collapse. Look at it for Country Wide.
Their CRA Rating was specifically solely boosted for many of these for as they worded it, finding innovative ways to provide loans to low income neighborhoods with little to no proof of income documentation.
All your drivel nonsense facts mean nothing without the context of who drove what.
Now, Obama drove the ACA. We can weight that and see it harms the economy.
The CBO itself said the stimulus would have a long term negative affect in favor of the short.
There is another harm.
The QE was weighed the same.
Show me a law George W Bush passed that was deemed to affect the economy.
You have it backwards. Republicans give CBO reports and democrats deny them.
Democrats can’t quote what made the collapse happen other than “Bush” with no data.
And then you go off on republicans like Agent and accuse them of doing the same.
It is complete and utter bull crap.
January 26, 2016 at 6:12 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
7
6
UW, Bill Clinton went on Letterman trying to derail obamas first run and clearly stated the mortgage crash was his fault as he loosened up the rules to stimulate the economy / housing boom. Which it did. Then a bunch of people slammed planes into our building with the sole intent of disrupting our economy. It did. One without the other, maybe we are in a different place. However, both happened and here we are.
I have several clients that need multiple jobs to make ends meet. Real world on main st USA. Not some political campaign BS. Real world, feet on the ground with my eyes and ears wide open. Maybe its just Illinois. We all know how IL politics work. We all know where OBama calls home. With record setting murder rate on top of another year of breaking that record in Chicago and his pal Rahm on the hot seat for all the woes including the school crises, where do you think OBama will call home after he leaves office? Would you put your kids in Chicago Schools? Will he be just like over 102,000 people last year or will he ruff it out? Me Personally, Hawaii sounds a lot better.
My point is there are factors from all side that have led us to where we are. Politics…. Vote for least of the politicians when you punch your ballot – whichever ticket that may be. For me the choices seems to be Sanders or Trump.
January 27, 2016 at 12:14 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
9
Bob, I have came to the conclusion that the anger issues many of these bloggers exhibit with their nasty, insulting behavior is rooted in the failure of their belief system. Their Messiah Obama has succeeded in dividing the country by race, class, economic status and they believe in Socialism and against any employer who is trying to make a buck in this idiotic economy. They didn’t have the gumption to start a business, take the risks, make payroll, pay bills so they will never own a business. If their boss knew what they were doing every day of the week, they would be out of there.
January 27, 2016 at 1:35 pm
VP says:
Like or Dislike:
10
7
Progressivism is a mental disease?!?! Oh my…you are an idiot.
January 27, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
9
3
Agent,
We all get angry. It’s ok. I don’t think they have anger issues.
They accused you of it and I get that probably stung and is why you’re bringing it up of them now.
People just get mad, and emotional, and charged.
It’s only when people insult people or make it the reason to discredit their arguments that it isn’t ok.
January 27, 2016 at 2:13 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
That should say insult people for being emotional.
Not general insults.
So if I were to say, bah humbug you whiny sissy boy, clearly you belong in the democrat party!
I would consider it line crossing.
I would consider it simply anger if someone said:
You whiny stupid democrat, we all know that my previously stated argument is accurate and you are burying your head in the sand like a typical democrat!
Well, then you have facts mixed with anger. That to me is not ok, but it’s still just anger and typical human.
January 27, 2016 at 6:48 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
Bob, you are going nuts a little too deep in your alternate reality again. No, saying Bush was president and a recession happened does not link him to the recession, but it is pretty clearly his fault. I don’t see a legitimate economist disagreeing with this. His deregulation policies, and refusal to enforce regulations was a huge problem. Even when it was clear there was a problem and people were calling for it he refused to do anything. Also, he appointed people without ample qualifications to Fed positions which helped cause the mess .
Your WAMU example is idiotic, to say the least. They were not forced to abide by the CRA; it is one of many things considered when some banks try to open a new branch, not a requirement. But, that is irrelevant. The CRA had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, despite repeated lies about this on the right. This is a classic case of those who watch/listen to Fox News being less informed than those who don’t follow news. The CRA does not mandate banks loan to low income, or minorities, and in fact it requires banks to do adequate research into a person’s ability to pay. WAMU is a key example of banks lying and not doing adequate research, through one example taking a picture of a guy in a mariachi outfit as proof of income. They were engaged in fraudulent loans, this was not due to the CRA. The Obama lawsuit you “cite” has been proven to be a lie, I won’t bother with it.
Even the premise that CRA loans were “riskier,” and failed more is bullshit. Places that did not use CRA loans failed at a higher rate than CRA banks, and CRA loans specifically failed at a lower rate than non-CRA loans.
“Every bank that made those commitments either failed or nearly failed.”
This is outright bullshit. You do ask about Bush policies that led to the crash, so maybe you should look into the 2000 law that allowed credit default swaps to remain unregulated.
Even what you “cite” about the CRA and banks makes no sense in the context you use it. The “innovated” ways they used it was to skip it, and give fraudulent loans to people they knew couldn’t afford it. This was because there was almost no regulation, and people received bonuses based on how many mortgages they sold, not how well they performed. Many at WAMU have stated this, and said people were rewarded for getting through riskier loans, which led to fraud.
The truth is that the majority of subprime loans, which were the prime cause of the crash, were done by lenders not covered by the CRA; only 20% were made by banks subject to CRA standards, and many of them were acting fraudulently.
You are almost completely clueless when it comes to economics. All you do is recite what Fox and Rush tell you. Why don’t you read some actual economics work instead of Fox, Investors.com, and Zero Hedge? Maybe start with the studies showing that almost all economists have stated the stimulus (which you are also comically confused about) was a success.
January 29, 2016 at 12:54 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
You still didn’t cite a law deregulating in 2000, and you imply he did this to a great degree.
You also have not shown how credit default swaps caused the collapse.
Credit default swaps is essentially selling bad debt. They are a good thing, when selling debt that isn’t terrible. The reason there was a lot of bad debt was due to the CRA.
Citibank was sued for redlining against low income borrowers.
I told you to read a CRA report, the reason for a high grade was commonly for “finding innovate ways to provide loans with little to no proof of income documentation”. That form of regulation is what lead to bad loans.
You said, that the CRA did not use that as the only measure, however, I listed two huge examples that made 1.325 trillion of commitments to low income housing, and they clearly did it not in spite of regulation, but with regulation’s blessings and got benefits for doing so. It is not bullshit. Nearly every bank that did this failed UW. It is not coincidence.
Also, CRA is not a minor thing considered. There is a CRA loan which has regulation and fillings, however many banks didn’t use these loans, and the ones that did didn’t have a huge failure rate. This is how democrats claim the collapse was not the fault of CRA loans.
But then you have CRA regulations. These are not one in the same.
Every banking business has to have their CRA reports available to the public, it has an effect as to whether or not they can be FDIC banks, which basically means it is the only way they can exist.
Read the CRA reports. They are public. They were given high ratings for finding innovative ways to give loans without proof of income, to people who could not afford it. These loans would collapse.
Coming back to credit default swaps:
If we did not have an excess of bad loans, swapping bad debt is not a bad thing, provided you have the good debt to offset the risk. Credit default swaps were not the cause of the collapse. They can cause a large amount of bad loans to be passed around, but the problem to begin with was what made people give bad loans? Companies would give bad loans to exist and grow, taking on huge risk, then would sell it to other people knowing the government would back them up if it failed. That is what occurred. It was choke held growth leading all companies to the same collapse.
In a regulated market, things fall the same way. In an unregulated one, firms would take the risk or would not. But not all companies would take the risk. You are a moron to believe that the collapse was due to too free of a market.
January 29, 2016 at 1:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
So then UW:
If deregulation was the cause, and this issue is what you claim makes Bush W a bad president (though you still haven’t shown me an actual law he deregulated)
If you even show me one,
I can show you one Clinton did.
Was Clinton a bad president economically, or will you still defend him as the best ever, by virtue of what occurred while he was in office?
The repeal of Glass Steagall.
I’m sure you know of it and will now frantically state how this deregulation was good while the one from the republicans was bad.
I postulate that the removal of Glass Steagall was good. Yes. That’s right. If you look over the details it was the right move. Allowing a bank to become large does not cause it to collapse.
Just like allowing a bank to do credit default swaps doesn’t make it collapse.
What makes it collapse is when you make them make bad loans, assure them those loans are fine, then tell them they can always just sell the debt so the don’t go bankrupt, resulting in a vicious cycle.
The government caused this. It is a fact, one you will have to accept.
Look at the numbers, don’t question the theory he mentioned.
The numbers are shocking. Bush W was for deregulation?
I just showed you a link with Bush W’s largest regulatory overhaul suggestion ever,
And one of the actual costs of regulation during his tenure.
This is why many republicans don’t like him and why the party split. They don’t like him because he isn’t a republican in many ways and acted like a democrat.
How many sources have I used now?
And how many have you?
I have backed up each statement by connecting the dots. You have scrambled to attempt the same.
UW you are wrong. Just accept it, admit it, move on.
January 29, 2016 at 1:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
In case you’re too ignorant to understand why I said
“This same writer later accused Bush W of being a deregulation based on talking about how low income people should have access to housing.”
and you somehow miss the source link I was making, see the first paragraph of the link:
“The Bush administration today recommended THE MOST SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY OVERHAUL in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
This is how many times Bush W suggested change to the housing market.
But no, he didn’t try to regulate at all, did he?
January 29, 2016 at 1:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
So now that I have established that Bush W was not deregulatory in nature, can we instead claim that YOU factually just proved you in fact are living in your own nut world?
I am not a nut job.
You disagree with me.
You don’t get to call me a nut job when I do research that doesn’t agree with yours.
Jack ass.
January 29, 2016 at 2:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
UW:
I do know laws the Bush W rolled back, I’m just seeing if you actually know any and can even attempt to explain what the law did.
Here is another Clinton deregulated, which I also do not believe lead to the collapse:
You simply disagree. That’s what your insults amount to.
January 29, 2016 at 2:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I just realized something here:
You said:
“This is outright bullshit. You do ask about Bush policies that led to the crash, so maybe you should look into the 2000 law that allowed credit default swaps to remain unregulated. ”
You could only be talking about the law I referenced. The one signed into place by Clinton.
I don’t think this law caused the collapse…
But…
What?
Did you really reference a law Clinton passed as the source of the collapse, and then blame Clinton?????
Did I really just witness this?
I thought you meant some law in the 2000’s, like the one Bush actually did pass (I’m going to wait for you to find it, I’m not giving it to you) which did not cause the collapse.
Are you insane?
January 29, 2016 at 3:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Son of a @#%@ I made too many posts.
Let’s simplify it:
Do you not agree with this statement:
Bad loans are what caused the economic collapse.
Do you not also agree with this statement:
In order to have a high CRA rating, you had to have evidence that you made efforts to expand into low income housing, with innovative procedures, such as no proof of income documentation?
Do you not agree with this statement:
Loans which are given for low income borrowers, with no income documentation, would have a higher failure rate than ones without?
Do you not agree with this statement:
CRA had a direct impact on whether a company would give these loans.
I mean really.
The law requires low income loan procedures, and here you are saying that it didn’t impact low income loan procedures.
The law didn’t do what it said it did?
Or do you think that just because low income loans are given that doesn’t mean they will fail?
What magically caused this collapse?
Trading a loan doesn’t make the loan more or less likely to fail.
The originating loan does. So no matter how much we regulate debt trading, it doesn’t matter. As the WHOLE INDUSTRY collapsed, it could not have been the swaps. The source loans collapsed first, and those who had credit default swaps were more at risk of having the bad loans.
January 22, 2016 at 7:15 pm
actu says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
18
14
Agent, go ahead and just ignore this one from UW. I see below you don’t reply to lefties, good thing, because UW is absolutely embarrassing you the last few weeks. The above comment should have you blushing if you were at all interested in truth.
Agent is too busy reading The Turner Diaries, don’t expect a response.
January 24, 2016 at 7:44 pm
UW says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
15
15
Thanks Planet, but it is really because I write facts, and don’t have a problem calling an idiot an idiot, so he never replies to me. The cornerstone of his type of conservatism is living with your head under a rock, so he has to find excuses to ignore those who point out his idiotic statements.
January 25, 2016 at 5:45 pm
Agent says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
12
16
actu, are you from outer space? Wasn’t that the robot in the Day the Earth Stood Still? UW, Confused should be embarrassed for wasting their employers time blogging their nonsense. Perhaps their employer will audit their computer some day and hand them a cardboard box and show them the door.
January 25, 2016 at 8:45 pm
UW says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
11
Devastating rebuttal, Agent. Are you actually a random word bot, or is this how thoughts come out of your mind? You don’t seem to have even basic reasoning skills, and most of your replies now that aren’t direct quotes from right-wing echo chambers make absolutely no sense.
Also, I have seen you complaining about grammatical errors, so I assume you are willing to translate your last statement into English, so it makes sense, and is written beyond a 2nd grade level, right?
I cannot speak for Confused, but luckily for me I actually make my company a lot of money, and have advanced technical skills, so I am not in any danger of being released, even though I work in a major market with a ton of competition, unlike some cow-town retards working crap accounts and listening to Limbaugh all day, and then blaming Obama on their failure.
January 26, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
How cute. A poor argument framing poor numbers that the author admitted himself mean nothing:
Crushed Agent. And now you’re teasing him.
You’re pathetic.
The ACA has consequences. Whether they outweigh the positives you can try to debate. To try and dismiss any consequences and criticism is naive.
Agent is a bit of a maverick, but I would rather have people like him pissed off questioning things, inclusive of his own party (he uses the term Rhino often) over someone who refuses to acknowledge the fringe in the democrat party, and criticize it.
I’m sorry, did you just “get crushed”?
Is that what my comment is about?
Your maturity of what this discourse is, is also telling.
This is about discussing what is best for the country. As much as you mock the republicans in congress, I would love to see you deal with it talking like a partisan hack.
January 27, 2016 at 4:57 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
4
Bob, I hate to tell you this, but you have used some choice words replying to the Progressive Leftists on this site. I have warned you about Ron, your chief antagonist, you know the one who voted for Obama twice and is proud of it. You can show him proof that he is wrong every day for a year and he still wouldn’t get it. On the others, they mainly name call, cuss and get very agitated when I don’t reply to them. It serves no useful purpose to reply to one of their ugly insults so I just respond to people who are at least reasonable. Nothing reasonable about the ugly 5 that I can think of.
January 27, 2016 at 6:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Agent,
Yes, it is annoying that the conversations never go anywhere. Oddly I don’t mind the insults unless the conversation becomes solely about them.
We all insult.
On politics and these guys in particular, I cannot even count how many times they have said both republicans and I don’t use sources…And yet I have been the only one here consistently using them…
It is frustrating. I even pulled up a source for you recently on that college incident.
I wonder if they have read CRA reports, and if they have read what allows banks to expand capital past typical regulations. I wonder if they know how CRA is related to this. They just aren’t connecting the dots and are taking what people tell them at face value.
I don’t know these things from articles. I read the CRA reports and got pissed.
Then I googled “Do you have to have a high CRA rating to give out loans?” and a few other items until I found out you do. The government entrapped these firms, and when they finally fulfilled obligations in order to operate how they wanted to, the obligations bankrupted them. Then democrats blamed the corporations they dominated. It is sick.
Most people saw the 2000’s as shameful for republicans. I don’t. I got to see the democrats blame and cop out of Iraq, the biggest sickening thing a party has ever taken advantage of on both ends.
I got to see them make the budget cutting super committee, agree to cuts, then go back on it and say they would only cut with more tax increases after they already made an agreement about 4 times and each time blame the republicans for not being bi partisan and for causing a shut down when they refused to modify their original agreement which was never honored.
How did this happen? How are people missing this level of corruption? It is the worst we have ever had.
January 28, 2016 at 9:15 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Agent,
When have I ever said that I was proud to have voted for President Obama? If you do you good reading comprehension, you would recall that I stated many times that I voted against the other candidates, not for Barack Obama.
The fact that you must keep putting words in my mouth in order for your narrative about me be correct says a lot about you and your lack of character. That is why I copy and paste your exact words when I challenge you or point out your hypocrisies. Why can’t you just keep to judging me based on what I actually say.
Maybe you missed it, but I conceded to Bob when he proved me wrong about Republicans passing any kind of health care reform bill. See, unlike you I can admit when I was wrong when provided actual proof.
January 29, 2016 at 1:27 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Agent,
I have now used 5 links, properly explained them and the relevance, I have referenced 2 laws in regards to racism, as well as the actual actions of Nixon neatly organized by an outside source, I have explained CRA ratings, I have explained laws to do with CRA ratings, and I have talked about many points in between.
But apparently Agent, UW would still love to see the fake data us racist republicans have.
Freaking kids these days…
Everyone is racist, misogynist, and homophobic but them.
January 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Bob, I see you are now trying to reason with UW which is as fruitless as your posts to Ron has been. In keeping with the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac issue, GW warned Bawney Frank & Chris Dodd numerous times that they were out of control and the response from good old Bawney was that Fannie & Freddie were sound and no cause for alarm. Of course he would say that since he had a boyfriend high in the food chain at Freddie. The sub prime mess started with Clinton and the bubble burst with GW, but somehow GW was blamed because he was in office at the time. By the way, Clinton has been given credit for having a robust economy during his second term. No one seems to remember that Gingrich and the House put the brakes on him and balanced the budget with their Contract with America. He finally had to give a speech which said that Welfare as we have known it is a thing of the past. Obama would never have given that speech. At least Clinton was practical.
January 29, 2016 at 3:41 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I don’t know why I bother Agent.
Somewhere in my mind I believe objective evidence wins out.
I don’t understand how kids these days have lost their intuitive nature. In your day you might not have had it at UW’s age but you certainly would have been learning it.
He doesn’t even appear to have the attitude to learn it.
January 23, 2016 at 4:42 pm
UW says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
12
16
No. The key example of Republican ideology, Donald Trump, recently said Republican racism is the fault of the Democrats. Their only consistent ideology is going against liberals as a group, not even their policies, because they don’t care/know about that
Trump speaks a lot. And he speaks poorly a lot. And you take one man and frame that as the argument against an entire party?
First: Republican racism is not stronger than democrat. A larger percentage of republicans (though not significantly) voted for the civil rights bill of 1964 than democrats.
Second: Republicans authored the civil rights bill of 1957. Yes. A full 7 years before democrat bill.
Third: Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Democrats were on the side of slavery.
Fourth: Let’s look at what even Richard Nixon did for blacks:
I have given 2 people as examples, and two laws. If you would like I will get more from republican senators, governors, and presidents. Then I’ll go back to Jim Crow, Jim Crow laws, segregation and others supported by democrats.
Keep in mind I’m not even trying to say slavery was the democrat fault. I believe that people hijacked the democrat party to push slavery. I don’t believe democrat ideals caused slavery.
But for you to try and state republicans are more racist and not expect backlash? It is insane.
Bob, I don’t seem to remember any Republican US Senators being prominent in the KKK decades ago. However, the Democrats did have one prominent US Senator named Robert Byrd, West Virginia who rode the ponies with the sheets and was proud of it most of his life. He was the true definition of a racist.
January 27, 2016 at 1:39 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
9
3
Agent,
I would have included him but my post was already too long.
I cannot believe how little younger democrats know about history these days. Do they not bother to look it up?
And then they accuse people like you of not knowing facts.
It is abhorrent.
January 27, 2016 at 6:58 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
Bob, idiot, yes there are other Republicans running and talking, and they are polling around 0%. They also believe the same insane stuff Trump says, but cannot get traction because they are not bombastic enough.
Your claim about Lincoln is outright retarded. You are either a troll, or have absolutely no historical knowledge about the US and US politics. The Republican Party Lincoln belonged to is long gone. He would not be a Republican today, and the Democrats you write about left the party, for the Republican Party in the 60’s because they did not like that the Democratic Party refused to be uber-racist, and were drawn to Nixon’s southern strategy. The reason Lincoln won was because the Democratic Party split over slavery. In both parties it was primarily a north-south split over slavery. The parties now are more closely represented by the Confederate and Union states. Nobody with half a brain makes the “Lincoln would be a Republican” argument anymore.
You, like Agent, are truly lacking knowledge on seemingly every single topic you write about. It’s stunning.
As for Nixon, you should read Nixonland or about the southern strategy. Even if he wasn’t racist–which he was, stating that blacks could not be equal in society for another 500 years, until they were properly inbred–he was supportive of racist causes, used racist strategies.
Truly clueless on every single aspect of politics, so, of course, as a conservative you have to ramble about it nonstop.
January 27, 2016 at 7:05 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
Agent:
Edward Jackson, Rice Means, Morley, Warren Harding, David Duke, among others.
But, know-nothing dolts, that is irrelevant. All the people who were Democrats, aside from Byrd who said it was a terrible mistake, and apologized for it saying it was due to youth and family, were Dixiecrats, who of course were the part of the Democratic Party that left for the Republican Party because the Northern Democrats were not racist enough.
January 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
You are citing high school history. I was taught this same thing.
You are also disregarding any examples of democrat racism. So then what was the 1957 law? Why did more republicans vote for the 1964 bill?
Quoting source after source of republicans leading the pack on black relations is idiotic? No. You are trying to discount any example and claim there was a switch.
There was no switch.
Historically, slavery was in the south, this created slightly more “racist” people in the south.
A few notes here:
A: That was in the 1800’s.
B: In the 1960’s around the civil rights movement, if republicans in the south were still racist, they would have FLIPPED DEMOCRAT in a rage to do with the fact that more republicans were anti segregation and more were voting for the civil rights bills, and that in 1957 the first civil rights bill was made by republicans.
I postulate that the south changed, and being more Christian, they decided to support the movement forward away from slavery. The movement was still probably not that large. There was not a substantial amount more racism in the south. This is bigoted to think.
January 29, 2016 at 1:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Instead, they stayed republican, I know that was implied but had to complete my post.
The moral of the story here though:
Republicans today are certainly not more likely to be racist, certainly were equally as active in racial rights in the 60’s, and certainly since then have been a part of the progress.
See again:
The actions of Nixon.
January 29, 2016 at 1:30 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I should note here UW:
The virtue of Trump being supported has reasons. Mc Cain was a just fine candidate, so was Romney. They were destroyed by the democrats dishonest campaigns.
Republicans are now more interested with someone who will fight the democrats then they are with policy, because your party has made it clear that policy cannot win.
I hope republicans will realize Ted Cruz is the right candidate.
I should note, that almost 25% of them do, and about 35% of them like Trump. This does not mar the entire republican base.
The real reasons they are voting are real, and most of them are not like Trump.
Regardless, Trump is not racist, he is a business man, he is not a good choice for president, but he is not abhorrent as you suggest.
Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s proposals are plain worse than his. This should show something.
January 29, 2016 at 1:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
UW:
I should also note, for someone who calls everyone else racist:
You are very eager to label population groups. Trump supporters, dem der southerners, etc.
Prejudice is a habit of labeling a group, which you are doing currently.
So knock it off. I don’t have time to educate a kid.
January 29, 2016 at 3:43 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
UW:
This is an ignorant argument. Why don’t you make me a list of 10 racist senators, and 10 racist governors. Include evidence.
If you’re going to call republicans racist, let’s see the objective evidence in current day.
Your old argument is bull crap, but we don’t need to argue it. Past is past. Let’s talk today, as you implied.
January 29, 2016 at 3:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Also:
I note you want me to read into supposed writings on what Nixon thought and what he said over what he did.
The stunning part is how much you buy into ideological crap, and the equivalent of Hollywood style news about politics.
You’re an idiot.
Let’s look at tangible, objective, law.
There was a democrat president rumored to have said the same things you are talking about with Nixon.
Remind me, when Agent brings this up, do you take it as evidence?
Or do you call it what it is:
Non objective, tin foil hat, crap?
January 29, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Bob, I think you may have overpowered poor UW. Now he will call you another name and tell you that you are a bully like Libby used to do when you relentlessly handed her head to her.
January 29, 2016 at 7:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I am more worried he is just ignoring the posts. I did too many.
But things like this cannot be condensed. The amount of links I used is insane, the amount of complex concepts, more insane.
But, no, I’m a simple minded, bible thumping, white (oh the horrors!!! Wait, is this racist??) misogynistic republican. I’m actually Hispanic but that was sarcasm.
January 26, 2016 at 4:19 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
12
4
Related to his passed laws, is there any reason we should not be laying these at his feet in regards to what his laws are potentially affecting?
Also, as Agent already pointed out:
It’s perfectly ok to blame Bush W for things by virtue of being in office, but it’s not ok to blame Obama for affects of actual laws he passed?
Bob, you are right about the younger Democrats not knowing true history. I would blame it on their education which was severely lacking or they were taught made up history by left leaning teachers/professors which permeate the schools. It is all to fit an agenda. All one has to do is watch a little network reporting and you see the agenda all the time.
Agent, you fucking dolt. You cite outright bullshit about Democrats being in the KKK, and ignore the actual context, like the Dixiecrats leaving the party because it was not racist enough for them, and was in favor of civil rights. All those people were in the south, and became Republicans, which is basically, shockingly, a moderate version of today’s party.
One of your problems is that you mistake copying and pasting something as education. If you had to rely on actual knowledge and critical thinking for your employment you would be homeless.
But of course that would be the Millennials’ fault.
January 29, 2016 at 1:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
A democrat is racist, and then you somehow say dixie crats, south, indirect things,
Now republicans are racist!
The idiot is you.
January 21, 2016 at 2:29 pm
UW Supreme says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33
14
Agent, this has nothing to do with Obamacare and EVERYTHING to do with his distain for business. This is just another notch in this administration’s overreaching, innovation-crushing war against business in our nation. By establishing this (pardon my language) retarded joint employment rule, it will only serve to dissuade businesses from hiring additional bodies and put already overworked employees under more stress by adding more work to their plates. In larger environments where temp employees are the core backbone of an operation, expect those businesses to cease operating. The ripple effect of something this asinine will be devastating.
I just will never understand why liberals are constantly inflating some sort of “class war” by trying to get everyone on a level playing field pay wise. That’s not how free market capitalism works. They don’t like it, here’s the door. Get the hell out already and move to Sweden so we can actually get our country back on track.
Supreme, if you were an employer with close to 50 employees, would you expand and pay for the Healthcare benefits and bankrupt yourself or keep it just under 50 and try to keep operating on a thin margin. That is what I meant about Obamacare killing jobs and business. Add the EPA to the mix and you can see what has been going on. I agree with you about what this administration has been doing. After all, we didn’t do that, we didn’t build that.
like auto losses, i see comparative negligence against the EPA and the Michigan Department for Environmental Quality. however, i say the DEQ holds greater than 50% of the fault for this incident — if the DEQ did what the EPA wanted them to do when they were first told about the EPA’s concerns, this wouldn’t have ever been an issue. yes, the EPA failed to take their case to the public, but you can’t blame the EPA for the DEQ doing nothing when the EPA kept prodding the DEQ to do something less this becomes a major health issue.
January 21, 2016 at 4:29 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22
8
The EPA was responsible for polluting a whole river in New Mexico or didn’t you know that?
January 21, 2016 at 4:53 pm
confused says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
18
you are right, and i remember that. is the EPA also to blame for the aliso canyon california gas leak?
January 25, 2016 at 5:42 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
12
3
The EPA is a terrible agency. The story is out how they caused the problem in Flint. Hello! I am from the government and I am here to help. Oops! Sorry for the harm done. Trust us Flint, we are looking out for you.
January 25, 2016 at 8:52 pm
UW says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
12
11
Agent, once again you have such a superficial, idiotic grasp on a topic that is should be embarrassing. The spill you reference is not “EPA pollution”. It is pollution that was left there from private mining operations that closed down. The EPA nominated the site for Superfund status, which would have allowed the area to be cleaned up, but the locals refused the funding because they thought it would hurt tourism. The EPA had limited resources, basically no help from locals, and limited options. After the spill spread–which would have happened eventually without the Superfund money–the locals decided they wanted the Sueprfund money.
You are truly one of the most under-informed people I have ever encountered. I have never seen you write about a single topic that could be fact checked and been even close to reality. It would be difficult to create a parody account that was a bigger joke than you.
January 26, 2016 at 8:49 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
7
11
Agent,
But it is OK for you to blog all day while your employees do all of the work, then you reap most of the benefits and take all of the credit.
January 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
10
3
Ron,
So…You’re a socialist then? Don’t try to re-define what I’m saying by asking for a definition of socialist, you know what I mean.
If agent even took 30% of what 15 employees brought in he would be sitting pretty, and he would have earned the ability to post on a forum every now and again.
Regardless of such, you post here don’t you? Are you not earning enough for your business owner? If agent cannot be producing enough to be an owner, you cannot be producing enough to be a producer. See how that works?
We all have time to do this, because it doesn’t take much time to do.
I’m one of the bigger brokers in my field. Posting on this site if anything is a venting process on off time so I don’t grind myself into the floor.
Is that what you want Ron? To grind everyone into the floor?
8 hour work days barely even make sense from a Catholic perspective for many fields. You have shown this in the past. I’m not saying we should all switch to 4 hours.
January 26, 2016 at 6:39 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
9
bob,
Again, you totally missed my point.
How exactly is being a socialist by calling for those who work harder to benefit more? Since when does working harder than someone else not lead to more reward?
If Agent can call for someone to be held accountable and fired for blogging all day, why should he be able to benefit far more than his employees who are actually doing the work?
January 29, 2016 at 7:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron,
“Again, you totally missed my point.
How exactly is being a socialist by calling for those who work harder to benefit more? Since when does working harder than someone else not lead to more reward?”
I have not missed your point.
A: After you set up a business in our field it usually requires less work. This means he may be working less now, but these business owners did not work less than their hire ons.
B: Working hard is not what determines earnings. Otherwise hard labor would be paid the most. Working smart gets earnings, which is also hard but usually not as hard as the day to day grind in a common job. It is a different type of hard. Hard to start, high risk, high reward. You just again tried to turn me into an ideological villain and I will again call you an ideological jack ass.
C: I missed nothing. In none of these posts did Agent say that bloggers were wasting the owner’s time, unless it is in another section of this post, and you posted in the wrong spot. Which if this is the case, then I will say that commenting a rebuttal is…
D: Counter efficient and not a rebuttal. If Agent did as an owner say this, he probably has a better grasp of how much free time he has than his employees who are probably just messing around, whereas he is time budgeting with his own business.
January 29, 2016 at 7:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Again, you totally missed my point.
How exactly is being a socialist by calling for those who work harder to benefit more? Since when does working harder than someone else not lead to more reward?”
I should also note every socialist says this, and then tries to adjust for the middle class who they believe works the hardest.
How exactly is it not socialist to weigh based on moral conscience and not economic value?
I’m sorry, some people have less economic value than others. Less output, less results, etc.
You might then say “well the business guy needs that little guy!” Most business people started as little guys, who then got where they are didn’t they? The other little guy can do the same if he busts his ass but he hasn’t has he?
Less output. Less results. Less economic value.
If you are going to try saying the middle class has a higher value based on an ideal, well, this conversation will go nowhere but up your own ideological ass.
January 21, 2016 at 3:42 pm
UW Supreme says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20
6
Agent, I get your point now. Blinded by rage (towards Obama), I read through your post too quickly.
Supreme, I am sure by now, you have read the latest tirade by the now infamous Confused who with his running mate UW spews their filth on a daily basis. They have some real anger management issues when they post, don’t they? I pay them no mind and refuse to get in a shouting match with either one. Both may need a frontal lobotomy and that might calm them down some.
January 22, 2016 at 8:26 am
confused says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34
14
nice trolling agent. nowhere here did i post with anger nor did i yell at anyone in my reply. but you insulting me and saying i need a frontal lobotomy – you need to get your anger management issues in check kiddo.
January 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
1
Confused,
Your anger already resulted in you missing the actual scenario with the college student falling out of the bed.
Agent does not have anger issues any more than you.
Expressing anger as agent has is perfectly healthy. Trying to control someone as you do…With regards to emotions…
Well, the movie equilibrium is something you should watch, freaking Nazi.
January 27, 2016 at 11:35 am
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23
10
Can you please find another way to insult Confused rather than calling him a Nazi? As a Jewish person whose family tried to flee Germany (some were successful, most were not), calling someone a Nazi (especially after the same person was already told he needed part of his brain removed) is disgusting. Can you find another way to insult him than invoking images of mass death and horrendous persecution?
January 27, 2016 at 1:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
8
2
Bob, did you know the Prime Minister of France, the noted Socialist, Hollande has declared an emergency in their economy? It seems those Socialist policies are to blame, 35 hour work week, retirement at age 52, high taxes, investors moving money out of the country is not a formula for success. Now, their tourism has fallen way off due to the Muslim Terrorist threat. I am afraid they don’t have much going for them.
January 29, 2016 at 12:35 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Supreme, Ron is now not proud of voting for Obama twice. After all his research, he decided it was a protest against McCain and Romney. They weren’t far enough left to suit him. Look what we got for the past 8 years, the worst President of the past century and possibly of all time. Good thing he won’t be there for much longer. Counting down the days.
January 29, 2016 at 12:47 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
Agent,
Unless you can cite where I ever said I was proud of voting for President Obama, please stop saying as such.
I have never been proud of voting for anyone, ever. Whether Democrat, Republican or Independent. My expectations of any individual elected official to have any real impact, positive or negative, are extremely low because I have actually read and understand the Constitution.
January 29, 2016 at 7:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt:
“Can you please find another way to insult Confused rather than calling him a Nazi? As a Jewish person whose family tried to flee Germany (some were successful, most were not), calling someone a Nazi (especially after the same person was already told he needed part of his brain removed) is disgusting. Can you find another way to insult him than invoking images of mass death and horrendous persecution?”
Let me put this in all caps for you, as you are definitely younger, and you are NOT someone who deals with the pain of WWII and Nazis:
DO NOT EVER, FUCKING EVER, ACT LIKE YOU WENT THROUGH WORLD WAR II AND USE IT TO SAY THAT SOMEONE SHOULDN’T BE COMPARED TO NAZIS.
Nazis became Nazis through arrogance. We are best if we remember what it is, to become one. How it happens. And to IDENTIFY it off the bat, not FORGET and act like a pundit, basically trying to be politically correct!
I’m sorry Rosenblatt, but your bullshit on this one is way too far!
We are going to remember those travesties, and we are going to hold the people, and the personality types that lead to it, accountable!
Tyranny is that path.
And confused is basically living it. Anything Agent does he mocks him, his emotional reactions, his political beliefs, as if he were a Jew, which is what democrats are doing.
If we do not acknowledge this is happening, we will have worse than Nazism.
So stick your ideological bull crap that you never experience up your ass!
January 29, 2016 at 7:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Also:
My Grandfather on my father’s side was from a line of Austrian/Hungary (German) engineers. They were involved in that split. Why do you think they moved here? He was from a religious family. In my family line there was definitely Nazi persecution.
Austria is where they came from.
Don’t you fucking dare, ever again use that argument. It is disgusting, on your end, not mine!
January 29, 2016 at 7:38 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Rosenblatt:
Shortest terms possible:
“Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it”
We aren’t censoring that attitude/s of Nazi type personalities. It is critical that we remember these personality types which still exist today, and combat them.
February 4, 2016 at 9:24 am
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16
0
Bob, slow your roll. I did not imply I went through WW2 in Germany – I said MY FAMILY went through it at that time & place.
“We are going to remember those travesties, and we are going to hold the people, and the personality types that lead to it, accountable!”
That’s great, keep doing that! I just asked you to stop calling someone a Nazi when they weren’t being fascist, racist or antisemitic.
“If we do not acknowledge this is happening, we will have worse than Nazism.”
So you called Confused a Nazi because you are worried we’ll have something worse than Nazism – please give me examples of something that is worse than 10+ million deaths that you feel Confused might have caused if you didn’t call him/her a Nazi.
January 23, 2016 at 4:45 pm
UW says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
14
19
Agent, idiot, you would go to a 50+th employee if your marginal benefit was more than the cost, which the data has shown is the case for almost all businesses, which is why companies have not been doing what you outline, and what Republicans claimed would happen.
But, if you were a stupid Limbaugh dittohead, you would refrain from adding an employee and leave money on the table, which you would blame on Obama. After a new company came in and you went out of business you would blame that on Obama too, instead of your own incompetence.
Bob, good posts answering the Nazi issue. We should never forget what those less than humans did to the Jews and all the others murdered in the name of the National Socialist Party. America came to the aid of Europe once again and took care of that bastard paperhanger as Patton put it. There are some who say that the Holocaust never happened. Unfortunately for them, there is plenty of proof with what Eisenhower did to document it.
February 4, 2016 at 9:28 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
I agree with Agent and bob – we should never forget what happened in WW2 w/ the Nazi’s. That was NOT the point of my post, but it doesn’t surprise me that both of you responded to something I didn’t actually write, say or imply.
January 21, 2016 at 1:06 pm
Don says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
0
How will this play with the Sub-Contractor say with a New Home Builder. Will the definition of an Employee be the same?
The Sub will still be a non-employee, still a W-9 non-employee, correct?
Actually, it shouldn’t be an issue with traditional staffing firms as their temps are always considered their employees (covered under their wc program) not their clients.
Don, Home Builders have a very bad track record when it comes to sub contractors and not requiring Certificates of Insurance. They often roll the dice and hope that nothing happens on a job site with an uninsured sub contractor employee. Some have agreements that the sub will not hold the General/Home Builder responsible in case of injury, but that might not hold up in court.
millenials, people who text, non-republicans, actuaries, people who get or perform abortions, anyone not born in the US, anyone born in the US but not to US citizens, non-christians, anyone who does not agree with you 100% of the time, and now home builders.
this is getting to be a very long list. it would be a lot easier to keep track of who you will NOT hate on. is it just republicans in the 35-65 age group? can you name any other group you won’t bad mouth?
“millenials, people who text, non-republicans, actuaries, people who get or perform abortions, anyone not born in the US, anyone born in the US but not to US citizens, non-christians, anyone who does not agree with you 100% of the time, and now home builders.”
Don’t forget climate scientists, genetic scientists, anthropologists, astronomers, physicists, weather forecasters, modern professional athletes, liberals, socialists, the Chinese, women, drone operators (who are all considered peeping Toms), black people (all non-Whites from what I’ve seen, actually), atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Arabs, and many, many more.
Oh SNAP! Speaking of which, you forgot poor people.
January 22, 2016 at 1:27 pm
confused says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
19
18
how could we forget them!? OH, we also forgot “people who work in the insurance industry, but don’t own their own agency”
January 27, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
11
3
Not all Millenials are like the trolls on this blog. I have a Millenial Partner who saw the light and is as Conservative as I am. He does very well, sells and services insurance and does not complain about how unfair life is or rag on business owners since many are customers of his.
January 21, 2016 at 3:36 pm
DaBear666 says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20
0
The offshore contracting industry will appreciate this ruling. While there may be little immediate impact that benefits offshore companies, the unintended consequences that appear later is where most of governments adverse actions show up.
This makes no sense. How can an employer who in good faith pays a temp agency to furnish an employee on either a temporary basis be responsible for the actions of the temp agency he is paying for? This pretty much takes away 90% of the reason to use a temp agency. It would be better from a liability standpoint to hire an independent contractor or a part time worker to fill in for a period of time. If you use an temp agency to try before you hire, which some of my clients do, that reason is taken away.
Because in many cases they are dictating, or responsible for the treatment of the employees. Many temp agencies might fall into gray areas, but that is not really relevant, because there are far more that are not in that gray areas, like McDonald’s or other franchies that have stringent rules for example.
If you want to run a company then you have to pay and treat employees a certain way. If you cannot do that, then good riddance, your company shouldn’t exist in this society; shut it down, sell it to somebody competent, or move to Liberia where you can do whatever you want.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Is there any trouble people won’t lay at the feet of President Obama. You’ve got to be kidding me!!!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Agent, if you don’t mind can you provide data for your claims about Obama and the economy?
You state he has killed jobs. Let’s compare him to your last Republican president since you brought up Bush out of nowhere. Although it makes no sense, I will simple use the start and end of their terms. The crash of course happened under Bush, and affected Obama’s numbers significantly. Job losses for example, make no sense to apply to Obama’s numbers in the first months of his presidency, but for the sake of simplicity I will use those numbers, because they still destroy your argument.
In Bush’s term total jobs (in thousands) increased by 4,540 in 8 years; in 7 years under Obama they have increased by 8,289. That is a total increase of about 3% during Bush’s presidency, and 5.8% in Obama’s, with a year to go, and the #s from the crash applied to Obama. In 7 years Obama has created a net increase of 183% as many jobs as during Bush’s 8 years. If you look at total nonfarm payroll, which economists usually see as a better gauge of the economy on a whole the change is over 800% for Obama.
Unemployment under Bush increased by 86% during his term, it has dropped by almost 40% during Obama’s term.
Again, all of that is using Obama’s start as the beginning of his numbers, which there is actually no rational argument for doing. If you do even 2 extra months for Bush he had net negative job “growth” compared to Obama’s growth.
Of course, you also claim it is because people have part-time jobs, which is, of course, false, so I will stop you before that rant. The total average number of hours worked has increased by about 2% under Obama for the period they have data for.
I cannot wait to hear your data-driven reply to this.
Stating numbers is not stating laws that cause numbers.
We can weigh the ACA, and we have as to the affect on jobs, whether CBO or other companies. They all agree there will be an affect it is just the degree.
So for example, and you admitted this:
Saying that Bush was president and a recession happened, does not link him to the recession.
You then look back and find out what pressured companies to give loans.
WAMU for example was allowed to expand only after they received benefits from giving more low income loans to increase their CRA rating. This means while not all loans were CRA, and not all CRA loans failed, they only expanded capital after this point into risky territory due to CRA regulations. We then ask why? Why did the CRA finally kick in?
Could it be the lawsuit filed in part by Obama against Citibank for redlining against low income borrowers? With the basis being CRA?
Could it be Clinton, hammering home the same in the 90’s?
When you look at the CRA ratings, and the fact that in order to expand capital they needed to have a high one, and then you look at the commitments in the 2000’s, it becomes clear what happened. Every bank that made those commitments either failed or nearly failed.
Wamu made 375 billion worth of this commitment.
http://www.investors.com/wamu-guilty-only-of-cra-compliance/
It was part of getting ready for a merger. I have said before the pressure caused firms to make bad moves before they could merge or make capital available on a low cost basis. This is analysis UW.
They were not the only ones. The CRA and democrats are all over why these loans failed.
Look at the CRA rating for WAMU before the collapse. Look at it for Country Wide.
Their CRA Rating was specifically solely boosted for many of these for as they worded it, finding innovative ways to provide loans to low income neighborhoods with little to no proof of income documentation.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/countrywide-expands-commitment-to-1-trillion-in-home-loans-to-minority-and-lower-income-borrowers-54027497.html
But us republicans don’t have data do we UW?
All your drivel nonsense facts mean nothing without the context of who drove what.
Now, Obama drove the ACA. We can weight that and see it harms the economy.
The CBO itself said the stimulus would have a long term negative affect in favor of the short.
There is another harm.
The QE was weighed the same.
Show me a law George W Bush passed that was deemed to affect the economy.
You have it backwards. Republicans give CBO reports and democrats deny them.
Democrats can’t quote what made the collapse happen other than “Bush” with no data.
And then you go off on republicans like Agent and accuse them of doing the same.
It is complete and utter bull crap.
UW, Bill Clinton went on Letterman trying to derail obamas first run and clearly stated the mortgage crash was his fault as he loosened up the rules to stimulate the economy / housing boom. Which it did. Then a bunch of people slammed planes into our building with the sole intent of disrupting our economy. It did. One without the other, maybe we are in a different place. However, both happened and here we are.
I have several clients that need multiple jobs to make ends meet. Real world on main st USA. Not some political campaign BS. Real world, feet on the ground with my eyes and ears wide open. Maybe its just Illinois. We all know how IL politics work. We all know where OBama calls home. With record setting murder rate on top of another year of breaking that record in Chicago and his pal Rahm on the hot seat for all the woes including the school crises, where do you think OBama will call home after he leaves office? Would you put your kids in Chicago Schools? Will he be just like over 102,000 people last year or will he ruff it out? Me Personally, Hawaii sounds a lot better.
My point is there are factors from all side that have led us to where we are. Politics…. Vote for least of the politicians when you punch your ballot – whichever ticket that may be. For me the choices seems to be Sanders or Trump.
Bob, I have came to the conclusion that the anger issues many of these bloggers exhibit with their nasty, insulting behavior is rooted in the failure of their belief system. Their Messiah Obama has succeeded in dividing the country by race, class, economic status and they believe in Socialism and against any employer who is trying to make a buck in this idiotic economy. They didn’t have the gumption to start a business, take the risks, make payroll, pay bills so they will never own a business. If their boss knew what they were doing every day of the week, they would be out of there.
Progressivism is a mental disease?!?! Oh my…you are an idiot.
Agent,
We all get angry. It’s ok. I don’t think they have anger issues.
They accused you of it and I get that probably stung and is why you’re bringing it up of them now.
People just get mad, and emotional, and charged.
It’s only when people insult people or make it the reason to discredit their arguments that it isn’t ok.
That should say insult people for being emotional.
Not general insults.
So if I were to say, bah humbug you whiny sissy boy, clearly you belong in the democrat party!
I would consider it line crossing.
I would consider it simply anger if someone said:
You whiny stupid democrat, we all know that my previously stated argument is accurate and you are burying your head in the sand like a typical democrat!
Well, then you have facts mixed with anger. That to me is not ok, but it’s still just anger and typical human.
Bob, you are going nuts a little too deep in your alternate reality again. No, saying Bush was president and a recession happened does not link him to the recession, but it is pretty clearly his fault. I don’t see a legitimate economist disagreeing with this. His deregulation policies, and refusal to enforce regulations was a huge problem. Even when it was clear there was a problem and people were calling for it he refused to do anything. Also, he appointed people without ample qualifications to Fed positions which helped cause the mess .
Your WAMU example is idiotic, to say the least. They were not forced to abide by the CRA; it is one of many things considered when some banks try to open a new branch, not a requirement. But, that is irrelevant. The CRA had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, despite repeated lies about this on the right. This is a classic case of those who watch/listen to Fox News being less informed than those who don’t follow news. The CRA does not mandate banks loan to low income, or minorities, and in fact it requires banks to do adequate research into a person’s ability to pay. WAMU is a key example of banks lying and not doing adequate research, through one example taking a picture of a guy in a mariachi outfit as proof of income. They were engaged in fraudulent loans, this was not due to the CRA. The Obama lawsuit you “cite” has been proven to be a lie, I won’t bother with it.
Even the premise that CRA loans were “riskier,” and failed more is bullshit. Places that did not use CRA loans failed at a higher rate than CRA banks, and CRA loans specifically failed at a lower rate than non-CRA loans.
“Every bank that made those commitments either failed or nearly failed.”
This is outright bullshit. You do ask about Bush policies that led to the crash, so maybe you should look into the 2000 law that allowed credit default swaps to remain unregulated.
Even what you “cite” about the CRA and banks makes no sense in the context you use it. The “innovated” ways they used it was to skip it, and give fraudulent loans to people they knew couldn’t afford it. This was because there was almost no regulation, and people received bonuses based on how many mortgages they sold, not how well they performed. Many at WAMU have stated this, and said people were rewarded for getting through riskier loans, which led to fraud.
The truth is that the majority of subprime loans, which were the prime cause of the crash, were done by lenders not covered by the CRA; only 20% were made by banks subject to CRA standards, and many of them were acting fraudulently.
You are almost completely clueless when it comes to economics. All you do is recite what Fox and Rush tell you. Why don’t you read some actual economics work instead of Fox, Investors.com, and Zero Hedge? Maybe start with the studies showing that almost all economists have stated the stimulus (which you are also comically confused about) was a success.
You still didn’t cite a law deregulating in 2000, and you imply he did this to a great degree.
You also have not shown how credit default swaps caused the collapse.
Credit default swaps is essentially selling bad debt. They are a good thing, when selling debt that isn’t terrible. The reason there was a lot of bad debt was due to the CRA.
Citibank was sued for redlining against low income borrowers.
I told you to read a CRA report, the reason for a high grade was commonly for “finding innovate ways to provide loans with little to no proof of income documentation”. That form of regulation is what lead to bad loans.
You said, that the CRA did not use that as the only measure, however, I listed two huge examples that made 1.325 trillion of commitments to low income housing, and they clearly did it not in spite of regulation, but with regulation’s blessings and got benefits for doing so. It is not bullshit. Nearly every bank that did this failed UW. It is not coincidence.
Also, CRA is not a minor thing considered. There is a CRA loan which has regulation and fillings, however many banks didn’t use these loans, and the ones that did didn’t have a huge failure rate. This is how democrats claim the collapse was not the fault of CRA loans.
But then you have CRA regulations. These are not one in the same.
https://www.frbatlanta.org/banking/publications/community-reinvestment-act/what-is-the-community-reinvestment-act.aspx
Every banking business has to have their CRA reports available to the public, it has an effect as to whether or not they can be FDIC banks, which basically means it is the only way they can exist.
Read the CRA reports. They are public. They were given high ratings for finding innovative ways to give loans without proof of income, to people who could not afford it. These loans would collapse.
Coming back to credit default swaps:
If we did not have an excess of bad loans, swapping bad debt is not a bad thing, provided you have the good debt to offset the risk. Credit default swaps were not the cause of the collapse. They can cause a large amount of bad loans to be passed around, but the problem to begin with was what made people give bad loans? Companies would give bad loans to exist and grow, taking on huge risk, then would sell it to other people knowing the government would back them up if it failed. That is what occurred. It was choke held growth leading all companies to the same collapse.
In a regulated market, things fall the same way. In an unregulated one, firms would take the risk or would not. But not all companies would take the risk. You are a moron to believe that the collapse was due to too free of a market.
So then UW:
If deregulation was the cause, and this issue is what you claim makes Bush W a bad president (though you still haven’t shown me an actual law he deregulated)
If you even show me one,
I can show you one Clinton did.
Was Clinton a bad president economically, or will you still defend him as the best ever, by virtue of what occurred while he was in office?
The repeal of Glass Steagall.
I’m sure you know of it and will now frantically state how this deregulation was good while the one from the republicans was bad.
I postulate that the removal of Glass Steagall was good. Yes. That’s right. If you look over the details it was the right move. Allowing a bank to become large does not cause it to collapse.
Just like allowing a bank to do credit default swaps doesn’t make it collapse.
What makes it collapse is when you make them make bad loans, assure them those loans are fine, then tell them they can always just sell the debt so the don’t go bankrupt, resulting in a vicious cycle.
The government caused this. It is a fact, one you will have to accept.
Also UW:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
This same writer later accused Bush W of being a deregulation based on talking about how low income people should have access to housing.
Another link to follow of someone who says this better than I and references the actual funding for regulation during Bush W.
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/602/the-great-bush-deregulation-myth
Look at the numbers, don’t question the theory he mentioned.
The numbers are shocking. Bush W was for deregulation?
I just showed you a link with Bush W’s largest regulatory overhaul suggestion ever,
And one of the actual costs of regulation during his tenure.
This is why many republicans don’t like him and why the party split. They don’t like him because he isn’t a republican in many ways and acted like a democrat.
How many sources have I used now?
And how many have you?
I have backed up each statement by connecting the dots. You have scrambled to attempt the same.
UW you are wrong. Just accept it, admit it, move on.
In case you’re too ignorant to understand why I said
“This same writer later accused Bush W of being a deregulation based on talking about how low income people should have access to housing.”
and you somehow miss the source link I was making, see the first paragraph of the link:
“The Bush administration today recommended THE MOST SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY OVERHAUL in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
US:
My best link is for last:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html
This is how many times Bush W suggested change to the housing market.
But no, he didn’t try to regulate at all, did he?
So now that I have established that Bush W was not deregulatory in nature, can we instead claim that YOU factually just proved you in fact are living in your own nut world?
I am not a nut job.
You disagree with me.
You don’t get to call me a nut job when I do research that doesn’t agree with yours.
Jack ass.
UW:
I do know laws the Bush W rolled back, I’m just seeing if you actually know any and can even attempt to explain what the law did.
Here is another Clinton deregulated, which I also do not believe lead to the collapse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
I have now quoted two, you have quoted Zero.
God, us republicans just are so stupid.
We don’t ever look at laws…
*rolls eyes*
You simply disagree. That’s what your insults amount to.
I just realized something here:
You said:
“This is outright bullshit. You do ask about Bush policies that led to the crash, so maybe you should look into the 2000 law that allowed credit default swaps to remain unregulated. ”
You could only be talking about the law I referenced. The one signed into place by Clinton.
I don’t think this law caused the collapse…
But…
What?
Did you really reference a law Clinton passed as the source of the collapse, and then blame Clinton?????
Did I really just witness this?
I thought you meant some law in the 2000’s, like the one Bush actually did pass (I’m going to wait for you to find it, I’m not giving it to you) which did not cause the collapse.
Are you insane?
Son of a @#%@ I made too many posts.
Let’s simplify it:
Do you not agree with this statement:
Bad loans are what caused the economic collapse.
Do you not also agree with this statement:
In order to have a high CRA rating, you had to have evidence that you made efforts to expand into low income housing, with innovative procedures, such as no proof of income documentation?
Do you not agree with this statement:
Loans which are given for low income borrowers, with no income documentation, would have a higher failure rate than ones without?
Do you not agree with this statement:
CRA had a direct impact on whether a company would give these loans.
I mean really.
The law requires low income loan procedures, and here you are saying that it didn’t impact low income loan procedures.
The law didn’t do what it said it did?
Or do you think that just because low income loans are given that doesn’t mean they will fail?
What magically caused this collapse?
Trading a loan doesn’t make the loan more or less likely to fail.
The originating loan does. So no matter how much we regulate debt trading, it doesn’t matter. As the WHOLE INDUSTRY collapsed, it could not have been the swaps. The source loans collapsed first, and those who had credit default swaps were more at risk of having the bad loans.
Agent, go ahead and just ignore this one from UW. I see below you don’t reply to lefties, good thing, because UW is absolutely embarrassing you the last few weeks. The above comment should have you blushing if you were at all interested in truth.
Ouch, you’re getting crushed lately.
Agent is too busy reading The Turner Diaries, don’t expect a response.
Thanks Planet, but it is really because I write facts, and don’t have a problem calling an idiot an idiot, so he never replies to me. The cornerstone of his type of conservatism is living with your head under a rock, so he has to find excuses to ignore those who point out his idiotic statements.
actu, are you from outer space? Wasn’t that the robot in the Day the Earth Stood Still? UW, Confused should be embarrassed for wasting their employers time blogging their nonsense. Perhaps their employer will audit their computer some day and hand them a cardboard box and show them the door.
Devastating rebuttal, Agent. Are you actually a random word bot, or is this how thoughts come out of your mind? You don’t seem to have even basic reasoning skills, and most of your replies now that aren’t direct quotes from right-wing echo chambers make absolutely no sense.
Also, I have seen you complaining about grammatical errors, so I assume you are willing to translate your last statement into English, so it makes sense, and is written beyond a 2nd grade level, right?
I cannot speak for Confused, but luckily for me I actually make my company a lot of money, and have advanced technical skills, so I am not in any danger of being released, even though I work in a major market with a ton of competition, unlike some cow-town retards working crap accounts and listening to Limbaugh all day, and then blaming Obama on their failure.
How cute. A poor argument framing poor numbers that the author admitted himself mean nothing:
Crushed Agent. And now you’re teasing him.
You’re pathetic.
The ACA has consequences. Whether they outweigh the positives you can try to debate. To try and dismiss any consequences and criticism is naive.
Agent is a bit of a maverick, but I would rather have people like him pissed off questioning things, inclusive of his own party (he uses the term Rhino often) over someone who refuses to acknowledge the fringe in the democrat party, and criticize it.
I’m sorry, did you just “get crushed”?
Is that what my comment is about?
Your maturity of what this discourse is, is also telling.
This is about discussing what is best for the country. As much as you mock the republicans in congress, I would love to see you deal with it talking like a partisan hack.
Bob, I hate to tell you this, but you have used some choice words replying to the Progressive Leftists on this site. I have warned you about Ron, your chief antagonist, you know the one who voted for Obama twice and is proud of it. You can show him proof that he is wrong every day for a year and he still wouldn’t get it. On the others, they mainly name call, cuss and get very agitated when I don’t reply to them. It serves no useful purpose to reply to one of their ugly insults so I just respond to people who are at least reasonable. Nothing reasonable about the ugly 5 that I can think of.
Agent,
Yes, it is annoying that the conversations never go anywhere. Oddly I don’t mind the insults unless the conversation becomes solely about them.
We all insult.
On politics and these guys in particular, I cannot even count how many times they have said both republicans and I don’t use sources…And yet I have been the only one here consistently using them…
It is frustrating. I even pulled up a source for you recently on that college incident.
I wonder if they have read CRA reports, and if they have read what allows banks to expand capital past typical regulations. I wonder if they know how CRA is related to this. They just aren’t connecting the dots and are taking what people tell them at face value.
I don’t know these things from articles. I read the CRA reports and got pissed.
Then I googled “Do you have to have a high CRA rating to give out loans?” and a few other items until I found out you do. The government entrapped these firms, and when they finally fulfilled obligations in order to operate how they wanted to, the obligations bankrupted them. Then democrats blamed the corporations they dominated. It is sick.
Most people saw the 2000’s as shameful for republicans. I don’t. I got to see the democrats blame and cop out of Iraq, the biggest sickening thing a party has ever taken advantage of on both ends.
I got to see them make the budget cutting super committee, agree to cuts, then go back on it and say they would only cut with more tax increases after they already made an agreement about 4 times and each time blame the republicans for not being bi partisan and for causing a shut down when they refused to modify their original agreement which was never honored.
How did this happen? How are people missing this level of corruption? It is the worst we have ever had.
Agent,
When have I ever said that I was proud to have voted for President Obama? If you do you good reading comprehension, you would recall that I stated many times that I voted against the other candidates, not for Barack Obama.
The fact that you must keep putting words in my mouth in order for your narrative about me be correct says a lot about you and your lack of character. That is why I copy and paste your exact words when I challenge you or point out your hypocrisies. Why can’t you just keep to judging me based on what I actually say.
Maybe you missed it, but I conceded to Bob when he proved me wrong about Republicans passing any kind of health care reform bill. See, unlike you I can admit when I was wrong when provided actual proof.
Agent,
I have now used 5 links, properly explained them and the relevance, I have referenced 2 laws in regards to racism, as well as the actual actions of Nixon neatly organized by an outside source, I have explained CRA ratings, I have explained laws to do with CRA ratings, and I have talked about many points in between.
But apparently Agent, UW would still love to see the fake data us racist republicans have.
Freaking kids these days…
Everyone is racist, misogynist, and homophobic but them.
Bob, I see you are now trying to reason with UW which is as fruitless as your posts to Ron has been. In keeping with the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac issue, GW warned Bawney Frank & Chris Dodd numerous times that they were out of control and the response from good old Bawney was that Fannie & Freddie were sound and no cause for alarm. Of course he would say that since he had a boyfriend high in the food chain at Freddie. The sub prime mess started with Clinton and the bubble burst with GW, but somehow GW was blamed because he was in office at the time. By the way, Clinton has been given credit for having a robust economy during his second term. No one seems to remember that Gingrich and the House put the brakes on him and balanced the budget with their Contract with America. He finally had to give a speech which said that Welfare as we have known it is a thing of the past. Obama would never have given that speech. At least Clinton was practical.
I don’t know why I bother Agent.
Somewhere in my mind I believe objective evidence wins out.
I don’t understand how kids these days have lost their intuitive nature. In your day you might not have had it at UW’s age but you certainly would have been learning it.
He doesn’t even appear to have the attitude to learn it.
No. The key example of Republican ideology, Donald Trump, recently said Republican racism is the fault of the Democrats. Their only consistent ideology is going against liberals as a group, not even their policies, because they don’t care/know about that
You are a fool.
Trump speaks a lot. And he speaks poorly a lot. And you take one man and frame that as the argument against an entire party?
First: Republican racism is not stronger than democrat. A larger percentage of republicans (though not significantly) voted for the civil rights bill of 1964 than democrats.
Second: Republicans authored the civil rights bill of 1957. Yes. A full 7 years before democrat bill.
Third: Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Democrats were on the side of slavery.
Fourth: Let’s look at what even Richard Nixon did for blacks:
http://nixonfoundation.org/2013/02/robert-brown-president-nixon-strong-on-civil-rights/
If he was racist it would have shown.
I have given 2 people as examples, and two laws. If you would like I will get more from republican senators, governors, and presidents. Then I’ll go back to Jim Crow, Jim Crow laws, segregation and others supported by democrats.
Keep in mind I’m not even trying to say slavery was the democrat fault. I believe that people hijacked the democrat party to push slavery. I don’t believe democrat ideals caused slavery.
But for you to try and state republicans are more racist and not expect backlash? It is insane.
Bob, I don’t seem to remember any Republican US Senators being prominent in the KKK decades ago. However, the Democrats did have one prominent US Senator named Robert Byrd, West Virginia who rode the ponies with the sheets and was proud of it most of his life. He was the true definition of a racist.
Agent,
I would have included him but my post was already too long.
I cannot believe how little younger democrats know about history these days. Do they not bother to look it up?
And then they accuse people like you of not knowing facts.
It is abhorrent.
Bob, idiot, yes there are other Republicans running and talking, and they are polling around 0%. They also believe the same insane stuff Trump says, but cannot get traction because they are not bombastic enough.
Your claim about Lincoln is outright retarded. You are either a troll, or have absolutely no historical knowledge about the US and US politics. The Republican Party Lincoln belonged to is long gone. He would not be a Republican today, and the Democrats you write about left the party, for the Republican Party in the 60’s because they did not like that the Democratic Party refused to be uber-racist, and were drawn to Nixon’s southern strategy. The reason Lincoln won was because the Democratic Party split over slavery. In both parties it was primarily a north-south split over slavery. The parties now are more closely represented by the Confederate and Union states. Nobody with half a brain makes the “Lincoln would be a Republican” argument anymore.
You, like Agent, are truly lacking knowledge on seemingly every single topic you write about. It’s stunning.
As for Nixon, you should read Nixonland or about the southern strategy. Even if he wasn’t racist–which he was, stating that blacks could not be equal in society for another 500 years, until they were properly inbred–he was supportive of racist causes, used racist strategies.
Truly clueless on every single aspect of politics, so, of course, as a conservative you have to ramble about it nonstop.
Agent:
Edward Jackson, Rice Means, Morley, Warren Harding, David Duke, among others.
But, know-nothing dolts, that is irrelevant. All the people who were Democrats, aside from Byrd who said it was a terrible mistake, and apologized for it saying it was due to youth and family, were Dixiecrats, who of course were the part of the Democratic Party that left for the Republican Party because the Northern Democrats were not racist enough.
You are citing high school history. I was taught this same thing.
You are also disregarding any examples of democrat racism. So then what was the 1957 law? Why did more republicans vote for the 1964 bill?
Quoting source after source of republicans leading the pack on black relations is idiotic? No. You are trying to discount any example and claim there was a switch.
There was no switch.
Historically, slavery was in the south, this created slightly more “racist” people in the south.
A few notes here:
A: That was in the 1800’s.
B: In the 1960’s around the civil rights movement, if republicans in the south were still racist, they would have FLIPPED DEMOCRAT in a rage to do with the fact that more republicans were anti segregation and more were voting for the civil rights bills, and that in 1957 the first civil rights bill was made by republicans.
I postulate that the south changed, and being more Christian, they decided to support the movement forward away from slavery. The movement was still probably not that large. There was not a substantial amount more racism in the south. This is bigoted to think.
Instead, they stayed republican, I know that was implied but had to complete my post.
The moral of the story here though:
Republicans today are certainly not more likely to be racist, certainly were equally as active in racial rights in the 60’s, and certainly since then have been a part of the progress.
See again:
The actions of Nixon.
I should note here UW:
The virtue of Trump being supported has reasons. Mc Cain was a just fine candidate, so was Romney. They were destroyed by the democrats dishonest campaigns.
Republicans are now more interested with someone who will fight the democrats then they are with policy, because your party has made it clear that policy cannot win.
I hope republicans will realize Ted Cruz is the right candidate.
I should note, that almost 25% of them do, and about 35% of them like Trump. This does not mar the entire republican base.
The real reasons they are voting are real, and most of them are not like Trump.
Regardless, Trump is not racist, he is a business man, he is not a good choice for president, but he is not abhorrent as you suggest.
Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s proposals are plain worse than his. This should show something.
UW:
I should also note, for someone who calls everyone else racist:
You are very eager to label population groups. Trump supporters, dem der southerners, etc.
Prejudice is a habit of labeling a group, which you are doing currently.
So knock it off. I don’t have time to educate a kid.
UW:
This is an ignorant argument. Why don’t you make me a list of 10 racist senators, and 10 racist governors. Include evidence.
If you’re going to call republicans racist, let’s see the objective evidence in current day.
Your old argument is bull crap, but we don’t need to argue it. Past is past. Let’s talk today, as you implied.
Also:
I note you want me to read into supposed writings on what Nixon thought and what he said over what he did.
The stunning part is how much you buy into ideological crap, and the equivalent of Hollywood style news about politics.
You’re an idiot.
Let’s look at tangible, objective, law.
There was a democrat president rumored to have said the same things you are talking about with Nixon.
Remind me, when Agent brings this up, do you take it as evidence?
Or do you call it what it is:
Non objective, tin foil hat, crap?
Bob, I think you may have overpowered poor UW. Now he will call you another name and tell you that you are a bully like Libby used to do when you relentlessly handed her head to her.
I am more worried he is just ignoring the posts. I did too many.
But things like this cannot be condensed. The amount of links I used is insane, the amount of complex concepts, more insane.
But, no, I’m a simple minded, bible thumping, white (oh the horrors!!! Wait, is this racist??) misogynistic republican. I’m actually Hispanic but that was sarcasm.
Related to his passed laws, is there any reason we should not be laying these at his feet in regards to what his laws are potentially affecting?
Also, as Agent already pointed out:
It’s perfectly ok to blame Bush W for things by virtue of being in office, but it’s not ok to blame Obama for affects of actual laws he passed?
Which do you find to be more unreasonable?
Bob, you are right about the younger Democrats not knowing true history. I would blame it on their education which was severely lacking or they were taught made up history by left leaning teachers/professors which permeate the schools. It is all to fit an agenda. All one has to do is watch a little network reporting and you see the agenda all the time.
Agent, you fucking dolt. You cite outright bullshit about Democrats being in the KKK, and ignore the actual context, like the Dixiecrats leaving the party because it was not racist enough for them, and was in favor of civil rights. All those people were in the south, and became Republicans, which is basically, shockingly, a moderate version of today’s party.
One of your problems is that you mistake copying and pasting something as education. If you had to rely on actual knowledge and critical thinking for your employment you would be homeless.
But of course that would be the Millennials’ fault.
A democrat is racist, and then you somehow say dixie crats, south, indirect things,
Now republicans are racist!
The idiot is you.
Agent, this has nothing to do with Obamacare and EVERYTHING to do with his distain for business. This is just another notch in this administration’s overreaching, innovation-crushing war against business in our nation. By establishing this (pardon my language) retarded joint employment rule, it will only serve to dissuade businesses from hiring additional bodies and put already overworked employees under more stress by adding more work to their plates. In larger environments where temp employees are the core backbone of an operation, expect those businesses to cease operating. The ripple effect of something this asinine will be devastating.
I just will never understand why liberals are constantly inflating some sort of “class war” by trying to get everyone on a level playing field pay wise. That’s not how free market capitalism works. They don’t like it, here’s the door. Get the hell out already and move to Sweden so we can actually get our country back on track.
Supreme, if you were an employer with close to 50 employees, would you expand and pay for the Healthcare benefits and bankrupt yourself or keep it just under 50 and try to keep operating on a thin margin. That is what I meant about Obamacare killing jobs and business. Add the EPA to the mix and you can see what has been going on. I agree with you about what this administration has been doing. After all, we didn’t do that, we didn’t build that.
yeah, because less EPA involvement is good for the country? can you imagine how worse off flint, mi would be right now without the EPA?
Hey confused? How could Flint, MI be ANY worse off than they are right now?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The EPA was responsible for polluting a whole river in New Mexico or didn’t you know that?
you are right, and i remember that. is the EPA also to blame for the aliso canyon california gas leak?
The EPA is a terrible agency. The story is out how they caused the problem in Flint. Hello! I am from the government and I am here to help. Oops! Sorry for the harm done. Trust us Flint, we are looking out for you.
Agent, once again you have such a superficial, idiotic grasp on a topic that is should be embarrassing. The spill you reference is not “EPA pollution”. It is pollution that was left there from private mining operations that closed down. The EPA nominated the site for Superfund status, which would have allowed the area to be cleaned up, but the locals refused the funding because they thought it would hurt tourism. The EPA had limited resources, basically no help from locals, and limited options. After the spill spread–which would have happened eventually without the Superfund money–the locals decided they wanted the Sueprfund money.
You are truly one of the most under-informed people I have ever encountered. I have never seen you write about a single topic that could be fact checked and been even close to reality. It would be difficult to create a parody account that was a bigger joke than you.
Agent,
But it is OK for you to blog all day while your employees do all of the work, then you reap most of the benefits and take all of the credit.
Ron,
So…You’re a socialist then? Don’t try to re-define what I’m saying by asking for a definition of socialist, you know what I mean.
If agent even took 30% of what 15 employees brought in he would be sitting pretty, and he would have earned the ability to post on a forum every now and again.
Regardless of such, you post here don’t you? Are you not earning enough for your business owner? If agent cannot be producing enough to be an owner, you cannot be producing enough to be a producer. See how that works?
We all have time to do this, because it doesn’t take much time to do.
I’m one of the bigger brokers in my field. Posting on this site if anything is a venting process on off time so I don’t grind myself into the floor.
Is that what you want Ron? To grind everyone into the floor?
8 hour work days barely even make sense from a Catholic perspective for many fields. You have shown this in the past. I’m not saying we should all switch to 4 hours.
bob,
Again, you totally missed my point.
How exactly is being a socialist by calling for those who work harder to benefit more? Since when does working harder than someone else not lead to more reward?
If Agent can call for someone to be held accountable and fired for blogging all day, why should he be able to benefit far more than his employees who are actually doing the work?
Ron,
“Again, you totally missed my point.
How exactly is being a socialist by calling for those who work harder to benefit more? Since when does working harder than someone else not lead to more reward?”
I have not missed your point.
A: After you set up a business in our field it usually requires less work. This means he may be working less now, but these business owners did not work less than their hire ons.
B: Working hard is not what determines earnings. Otherwise hard labor would be paid the most. Working smart gets earnings, which is also hard but usually not as hard as the day to day grind in a common job. It is a different type of hard. Hard to start, high risk, high reward. You just again tried to turn me into an ideological villain and I will again call you an ideological jack ass.
C: I missed nothing. In none of these posts did Agent say that bloggers were wasting the owner’s time, unless it is in another section of this post, and you posted in the wrong spot. Which if this is the case, then I will say that commenting a rebuttal is…
D: Counter efficient and not a rebuttal. If Agent did as an owner say this, he probably has a better grasp of how much free time he has than his employees who are probably just messing around, whereas he is time budgeting with his own business.
“Again, you totally missed my point.
How exactly is being a socialist by calling for those who work harder to benefit more? Since when does working harder than someone else not lead to more reward?”
I should also note every socialist says this, and then tries to adjust for the middle class who they believe works the hardest.
How exactly is it not socialist to weigh based on moral conscience and not economic value?
I’m sorry, some people have less economic value than others. Less output, less results, etc.
You might then say “well the business guy needs that little guy!” Most business people started as little guys, who then got where they are didn’t they? The other little guy can do the same if he busts his ass but he hasn’t has he?
Less output. Less results. Less economic value.
If you are going to try saying the middle class has a higher value based on an ideal, well, this conversation will go nowhere but up your own ideological ass.
Agent, I get your point now. Blinded by rage (towards Obama), I read through your post too quickly.
Supreme, I am sure by now, you have read the latest tirade by the now infamous Confused who with his running mate UW spews their filth on a daily basis. They have some real anger management issues when they post, don’t they? I pay them no mind and refuse to get in a shouting match with either one. Both may need a frontal lobotomy and that might calm them down some.
nice trolling agent. nowhere here did i post with anger nor did i yell at anyone in my reply. but you insulting me and saying i need a frontal lobotomy – you need to get your anger management issues in check kiddo.
Confused,
Your anger already resulted in you missing the actual scenario with the college student falling out of the bed.
Agent does not have anger issues any more than you.
Expressing anger as agent has is perfectly healthy. Trying to control someone as you do…With regards to emotions…
Well, the movie equilibrium is something you should watch, freaking Nazi.
Can you please find another way to insult Confused rather than calling him a Nazi? As a Jewish person whose family tried to flee Germany (some were successful, most were not), calling someone a Nazi (especially after the same person was already told he needed part of his brain removed) is disgusting. Can you find another way to insult him than invoking images of mass death and horrendous persecution?
Bob, did you know the Prime Minister of France, the noted Socialist, Hollande has declared an emergency in their economy? It seems those Socialist policies are to blame, 35 hour work week, retirement at age 52, high taxes, investors moving money out of the country is not a formula for success. Now, their tourism has fallen way off due to the Muslim Terrorist threat. I am afraid they don’t have much going for them.
Supreme, Ron is now not proud of voting for Obama twice. After all his research, he decided it was a protest against McCain and Romney. They weren’t far enough left to suit him. Look what we got for the past 8 years, the worst President of the past century and possibly of all time. Good thing he won’t be there for much longer. Counting down the days.
Agent,
Unless you can cite where I ever said I was proud of voting for President Obama, please stop saying as such.
I have never been proud of voting for anyone, ever. Whether Democrat, Republican or Independent. My expectations of any individual elected official to have any real impact, positive or negative, are extremely low because I have actually read and understand the Constitution.
Rosenblatt:
“Can you please find another way to insult Confused rather than calling him a Nazi? As a Jewish person whose family tried to flee Germany (some were successful, most were not), calling someone a Nazi (especially after the same person was already told he needed part of his brain removed) is disgusting. Can you find another way to insult him than invoking images of mass death and horrendous persecution?”
Let me put this in all caps for you, as you are definitely younger, and you are NOT someone who deals with the pain of WWII and Nazis:
DO NOT EVER, FUCKING EVER, ACT LIKE YOU WENT THROUGH WORLD WAR II AND USE IT TO SAY THAT SOMEONE SHOULDN’T BE COMPARED TO NAZIS.
Nazis became Nazis through arrogance. We are best if we remember what it is, to become one. How it happens. And to IDENTIFY it off the bat, not FORGET and act like a pundit, basically trying to be politically correct!
I’m sorry Rosenblatt, but your bullshit on this one is way too far!
We are going to remember those travesties, and we are going to hold the people, and the personality types that lead to it, accountable!
Tyranny is that path.
And confused is basically living it. Anything Agent does he mocks him, his emotional reactions, his political beliefs, as if he were a Jew, which is what democrats are doing.
If we do not acknowledge this is happening, we will have worse than Nazism.
So stick your ideological bull crap that you never experience up your ass!
Also:
My Grandfather on my father’s side was from a line of Austrian/Hungary (German) engineers. They were involved in that split. Why do you think they moved here? He was from a religious family. In my family line there was definitely Nazi persecution.
Austria is where they came from.
Don’t you fucking dare, ever again use that argument. It is disgusting, on your end, not mine!
Rosenblatt:
Shortest terms possible:
“Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it”
We aren’t censoring that attitude/s of Nazi type personalities. It is critical that we remember these personality types which still exist today, and combat them.
Bob, slow your roll. I did not imply I went through WW2 in Germany – I said MY FAMILY went through it at that time & place.
“We are going to remember those travesties, and we are going to hold the people, and the personality types that lead to it, accountable!”
That’s great, keep doing that! I just asked you to stop calling someone a Nazi when they weren’t being fascist, racist or antisemitic.
“If we do not acknowledge this is happening, we will have worse than Nazism.”
So you called Confused a Nazi because you are worried we’ll have something worse than Nazism – please give me examples of something that is worse than 10+ million deaths that you feel Confused might have caused if you didn’t call him/her a Nazi.
Agent, idiot, you would go to a 50+th employee if your marginal benefit was more than the cost, which the data has shown is the case for almost all businesses, which is why companies have not been doing what you outline, and what Republicans claimed would happen.
But, if you were a stupid Limbaugh dittohead, you would refrain from adding an employee and leave money on the table, which you would blame on Obama. After a new company came in and you went out of business you would blame that on Obama too, instead of your own incompetence.
Bob, good posts answering the Nazi issue. We should never forget what those less than humans did to the Jews and all the others murdered in the name of the National Socialist Party. America came to the aid of Europe once again and took care of that bastard paperhanger as Patton put it. There are some who say that the Holocaust never happened. Unfortunately for them, there is plenty of proof with what Eisenhower did to document it.
I agree with Agent and bob – we should never forget what happened in WW2 w/ the Nazi’s. That was NOT the point of my post, but it doesn’t surprise me that both of you responded to something I didn’t actually write, say or imply.
How will this play with the Sub-Contractor say with a New Home Builder. Will the definition of an Employee be the same?
The Sub will still be a non-employee, still a W-9 non-employee, correct?
Thanks for keeping us aware.
This is definitely more of a concern from a Workers Compensation perspective and how claims will be paid between a staffing agency and the employer.
Actually, it shouldn’t be an issue with traditional staffing firms as their temps are always considered their employees (covered under their wc program) not their clients.
Don, Home Builders have a very bad track record when it comes to sub contractors and not requiring Certificates of Insurance. They often roll the dice and hope that nothing happens on a job site with an uninsured sub contractor employee. Some have agreements that the sub will not hold the General/Home Builder responsible in case of injury, but that might not hold up in court.
millenials, people who text, non-republicans, actuaries, people who get or perform abortions, anyone not born in the US, anyone born in the US but not to US citizens, non-christians, anyone who does not agree with you 100% of the time, and now home builders.
this is getting to be a very long list. it would be a lot easier to keep track of who you will NOT hate on. is it just republicans in the 35-65 age group? can you name any other group you won’t bad mouth?
“millenials, people who text, non-republicans, actuaries, people who get or perform abortions, anyone not born in the US, anyone born in the US but not to US citizens, non-christians, anyone who does not agree with you 100% of the time, and now home builders.”
Don’t forget climate scientists, genetic scientists, anthropologists, astronomers, physicists, weather forecasters, modern professional athletes, liberals, socialists, the Chinese, women, drone operators (who are all considered peeping Toms), black people (all non-Whites from what I’ve seen, actually), atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Arabs, and many, many more.
But liberals are “hateful” of course.
Oh SNAP! Speaking of which, you forgot poor people.
how could we forget them!? OH, we also forgot “people who work in the insurance industry, but don’t own their own agency”
Not all Millenials are like the trolls on this blog. I have a Millenial Partner who saw the light and is as Conservative as I am. He does very well, sells and services insurance and does not complain about how unfair life is or rag on business owners since many are customers of his.
The offshore contracting industry will appreciate this ruling. While there may be little immediate impact that benefits offshore companies, the unintended consequences that appear later is where most of governments adverse actions show up.
This makes no sense. How can an employer who in good faith pays a temp agency to furnish an employee on either a temporary basis be responsible for the actions of the temp agency he is paying for? This pretty much takes away 90% of the reason to use a temp agency. It would be better from a liability standpoint to hire an independent contractor or a part time worker to fill in for a period of time. If you use an temp agency to try before you hire, which some of my clients do, that reason is taken away.
Because in many cases they are dictating, or responsible for the treatment of the employees. Many temp agencies might fall into gray areas, but that is not really relevant, because there are far more that are not in that gray areas, like McDonald’s or other franchies that have stringent rules for example.
If you want to run a company then you have to pay and treat employees a certain way. If you cannot do that, then good riddance, your company shouldn’t exist in this society; shut it down, sell it to somebody competent, or move to Liberia where you can do whatever you want.