ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Jun. 22 2012, 5:03 pm

Quote: entropyman @ Jun. 21 2012, 8:37 pm

>

>Caltrek2, forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Barney Frank (co-author of Dodd-Frank) who mandated lenders to loan money to those who could not afford to pay them back in the first place?

>
Caltrek refuses to acknowledge the truth in that... Many of us have pointed this out to him several times.  Sadly, regardless of the number of facts supporting the truth, he disregards them as some "conservative opinion."  1+1 always equals 2, regardless of which "side" you're on (even though the truth has no sides) - he just refuses to accept that if it doesn't support his ProRegressive agenda (and then lies about it.)  This is why I have stopped reading what Cal writes and refuse to deal with him.  As Thomas Paine so aptly put it, “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”


Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jun. 23 2012, 3:59 am

chr, firstly, corwin did not post and article. He posted an opinion piece. Secondly, it provided no sources. It only provided claim after claim. So it doesn't provide evidence for itself, it doesn't even try to. Thirdly, since corwin not only posted it, but started that he agreed with it, that implies that he has some reason to do so; perhaps some evidence of the piece's accuracy? I guess we'll never know, since he refuses to back anything up.

Kinda convenient; I make a claim, I have to do all the work to argue for it, and if I disagree with a claim, I still have to all the work to argue against it.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jun. 23 2012, 7:49 am

entropyman: Caltrek2, forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Barney Frank (co-author of Dodd-Frank) who mandated lenders to loan money to those who could not afford to pay them back in the first place?


caltrek: I have no knowledge of any legislation sponsored by Barney Frank or action taken by Mr. Fank that impose such a mandate.  Perhaps you are referring to the Community Reinvestmewnt Act, which did no such thing despite the accusations of know-nothing commentators and politicians to the contrary. If that is what you are referring to, then I feel compelled to repeat what I stated earlier:


So much of what happened can be traced back to the repeal of that 32 page legislation known as Glass-Steagall. So, does the right in this country support re-instatement of Glass-Steagall?


No.


Do they even acknowledge this history?


No. Instead they scapegoat the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. An act passed thirty years before the collapse. An act that had nothing to do with the problem. With that history , all credibility by the right in this country has been lost, at least in my eyes and in the eyes of anybody who has kept their eyes open to what has gone down."


I do hope that you do not go forward to prove me correct about how the right operates and approaches this issue by once again spouting forth a false history of the Community Reinvestment Act.


 



 

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jun. 23 2012, 7:58 am

BamBam: Caltrek refuses to acknowledge the truth in that... Many of us have pointed this out to him several times.


caltrek: Many of you have offered your opinions to that effect.  Some people in the conservative media or cited by the conservative media have also offered opinions to that effect. None have you have presented a shred of credible evidence to support your assertions.  Something isn't the truth simply because you say it is the truth.


Nobody has pointed out to me in any legislative language where the Community Investment Act or any other legislative act "mandated lenders to loan money to those who could not afford to pay them back".


You can follow the path of Hitler and his propogandistic machinery all you want and repeat the big lie over and over again. Doesn't make it correct. In my mind, such repetition without evidence merely undermines your own credibility. But then, some of you don't seem to care about that.

Corwin8

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8468

Report this Jun. 25 2012, 8:37 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 23 2012, 3:59 am

>chr, firstly, corwin did not post and article. He posted an opinion piece. Secondly, it provided no sources. It only provided claim after claim. So it doesn't provide evidence for itself, it doesn't even try to. Thirdly, since corwin not only posted it, but started that he agreed with it, that implies that he has some reason to do so; perhaps some evidence of the piece's accuracy? I guess we'll never know, since he refuses to back anything up. Kinda convenient; I make a claim, I have to do all the work to argue for it, and if I disagree with a claim, I still have to all the work to argue against it.


Yes I agree with an opinion piece. Of course it doesn't have to provide sources and I have said repeatedly if you want to find them, be my guest.  I'm not going to provide anymore than that. You can dispute it all you wish. Do the work. 


I am under no obligation to provide anything to back this article up. If I had stated these as cold hard irrefutable facts then by all means I own the facts and sources, but since the way the opinion is written and how it's structured is not presented with facts and footnotes, I'm not going to provide the 'back up' you seem to think I owe you or anyone else. I can agree with someone who has the opinion that internet posters to the Star Trek message board are all thirty something douchbags who live at home in the basement. I don't have to provide facts to back that up, yet I can agree with it. It doesnt make me right. I means I agree. How many people have agreed with an opinion only to find out it's bullshit?


Prove me wrong. Or right. I'm not doing the work for an opinion. No matter how much anyone whines about it. Facts I'll provide sources for , but since you tend to oppose me on every level, a I'll just go with the fact that in your opinion anything I post is wrong all the time. Please, I expect nothing less than your best in proving me right about that opinion, or wrong. I do not care.


 


Let the bridges I burn light the way. You are special, just like everybody else. Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist’

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jun. 25 2012, 2:23 pm

You posted it. You stated that you agree with it. Therefore it's your responsibility to back it up. We're not going to do your work for you.


Given your absolute refusal to do the work that you and only you are required to do, that opinion piece, without any backing, is worth nothing. Which means your support of it is worth nothing. So what that boils down to is that you trolled us. Congratulations. You've willingly placed yourself at the bottom of the barrel. No surprise, considering that you copy and support the words of a convicted fraud. (Yes, Corwin, some of us actually know who Porter Stansberry is. I can't help but to wonder if you can say the same.)

Corwin8

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8468

Report this Jun. 26 2012, 5:54 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jun. 25 2012, 2:23 pm

>

>You posted it. You stated that you agree with it. Therefore it's your responsibility to back it up. We're not going to do your work for you.

>Given your absolute refusal to do the work that you and only you are required to do, that opinion piece, without any backing, is worth nothing. Which means your support of it is worth nothing. So what that boils down to is that you trolled us. Congratulations. You've willingly placed yourself at the bottom of the barrel. No surprise, considering that you copy and support the words of a convicted fraud. (Yes, Corwin, some of us actually know who Porter Stansberry is. I can't help but to wonder if you can say the same.)

>


Oh Snap, feel the burn.


Is that supposed to hurt me? Challenge my honor? Force me to explain again to you, a rather bright person, mostly, what the article is and where I feel I need to do the work?


He's a fraud because you say he is? OK your word is your bond. Let's take that at face value. Is he wrong in the article I posted? Dosen't matter. It's an opinion piece. I may later come back and say I was horribly wrong about the guy. One never knows. 


I've explained the lack of work I have yet to do and why, yet you still demand it, claiming it's 'my responsibility' says you? OK when did I start working for you? It's simple. I will not back up an opinion piece, ever. Call me lazy and a troll. I do not care. If I post it based on what myself or the author says are facts, I will always provide a link to the source and supporting evidence as needed. If you wish to dispute an opinion the work falls to you. Or not. I, again, do not care. 


I understand you are not really reading my responses, nor are you apparently grasping the content, all you are really doing is waiting for some linkfest battle in which you will again try to hurt my feelings. Not going to happen. 


So enjoy the smug satisfaction that comes with thinking you are better than a stranger on the internet. That and $2.50 will get you a small coffee at Dunkin Donuts.


Let the bridges I burn light the way. You are special, just like everybody else. Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist’

Gomoth

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this Jun. 26 2012, 11:03 pm

I have a great, well-paying job.

Lost Shaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Jul. 02 2012, 3:14 pm

The article Corwin6 posted has much truth to it. When entrepreneurs are robbed of their ability to save by government, the savings do not exist for investment. Jobs are not enough to grow an economy, as competition will sift away those jobs that are inefficient... until only the efficient ones remain and an equilibrium exists.


So what is needed to create economic growth? New markets defined by novel products and services. New markets precede stable jobs. For example.... you can have one fishing job or twenty fishing jobs, but the economy would still be a fishing economy. However, an entrepreneur may wish to underconsume and save his fish to invest in a hut instead. Once the hut is built and shown to be a proven success, others will want one too. Demand is created and a new market is opened. The economy has grown, as it is now defined by fishing and hut building.   

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 06 2012, 5:33 am

Just finished a book by Wendell Berry. (Thanks for the encouragement Lost Shaker).


An important point he makes is in regards to efficiency. Take farming. You can measure efficiency in one of two ways:


1) The productivity of workers.


2) The productivity of the land.


What corporations do: make the workers productive.


What "traditional" farmers do: make the land productive.


Commodification gone amok leads to the need for a cash based economy. Cash is fungible. You can buy anything with it (except maybe politicians - they are only up for lease).


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

Data's Girl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 273

Report this Jul. 06 2012, 1:45 pm

Oh, goodness guys, you're killing me. I had a feeling this thread was a political bomb waiting to go off. I'm gonna go take a nap, and let this all process. *grumble* I have a headache...


tai nasha no karosha :)

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Jul. 06 2012, 2:25 pm

@ Data's Girl:  Take two aspirin and call me in the morning, or the afternoon, or the evening.

Data's Girl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 273

Report this Jul. 07 2012, 10:28 am

*Stretch* Morning... Um... Ok, what was going on?


tai nasha no karosha :)

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Jul. 07 2012, 11:10 am

Gibmaticus

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23

Report this Jul. 07 2012, 6:38 pm

Porter Stansberry is a grifter and those who would swallow his pabulum are gulls.  There's always a grifter with a come-on, stroking you, massaging your fears and prejudices, telling you what you want to hear.  Before you know it, he's extracted money from you and you think you actually got something for that cash.  People who read Stansberry are called "marks".  I couldn't make it through the whole piece, it's just such by-the-numbers nonsense.  Big, bad Uncle Sam taking the money of the hard-working entrepreneur, it's not fair!  Regulation - bad, freedom - good!  All I want to do is be in business but the govt. won't let me!  Taxes are unfair!  blahblahblahblah.........


Listen up,  rear admiral boomboom, whatever your name is.  Tax cuts do not create jobs, wealth is being redistributed upward at a higher rate than ever, entrepreneurs go to banks to get loans to start businesses, they are not risking their own money, all free societies tax their citizens and have always done so, in the past in this nation high tax rates have accompanied high production, tax rates do not depress production, markets create jobs, not politicians, and you and the rest of the wingnuts on this and every other thread don't know what the hell you're talking about!  Your business acumen is straight outta FAUX News, you don't deal in facts, you deal in the same old, tired GOP ideology that has gotten this nation absolutely nowhere.  You want to do something positive for yourself?  You want to understand what's really going on??


Read Krugman. 

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum