Comments on: Another Day, Another $275 Billion

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:31:37 +0000

Tbomb wants me to mention credit default swaps for some reason.

Okay – credit default swaps.

By: Da King

Da King — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:27:52 +0000

Rev thinks it's in my self-interest to pay my neighbor's mortgage, and also altruistic to help my neighbor who is down on his luck.

Okay, Rev, I'll accept your theory on one condition – you send me $50,000, because I need it. The economic crisis has hurt me too. If you are unwilling to do that, you destroy your entire argument.

I'd prefer a cashier's check, if it's not too much trouble.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:34:06 +0000

Bush did it too just not half as bad is an excuse that's already getting pretty feeble, Reverend.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:54:32 +0000

And to Andrea…..cheers and godspeed…..I've read a couple of your latest comments. Excellently done. Good on ya', woman.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:53:05 +0000

This is the line from larry…

"Future generations aren't being represented because they can't vote yet, Reverend."

…that made roy pee in his pants a little bit. Sometimes I'm easily amused, too, roy.

What may not be so humorous, however, is this….Republicans haven't given one sh*t about future generations for the last 30 years. Every GOP administration left big deficits for some future generation to pay off. There was never any wailing and gnashing of teeth for those that were yet to be born, then. What makes the current situation different? Democratic president.

And King…..why call the fire department? Self-interest or altruism?

If your answer is self-interest…..then you should be glad when your neighbor is able to prevent a foreclosure, too, that keeps your house from depreciating and hey, meth makers might move in.

If your answer is altruism…..then why would you not apply that same altruism to a neighbor down on his luck and about to lose his house?

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:45:16 +0000

King, I think you have finally come up with the most likely name for old Rev. Reverend MIsdirection fits him very nicely.

By: Tbomb

Tbomb — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:10:11 +0000

King, you could at least mention credit default swaps,which gave the Wall St. boys the excuse needed to sell mortgage backed security funds.Mortgage lenders were encouraged, even pressured by their mgrs. to make as many loans as possible in order to bundle them into investment funds which were being sold like hotcakes to largely foreign investors who were tripping over themselves to invest in Amer. real estate,a traditionally safe investment with solid returns.

By: Da King

Da King — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:07:42 +0000

Rev,
No, if my neighbor's house was burning down, I'd definitely call the fire department.

But if he couldn't pay his mortgage, I wouldn't pay it for him. That's his responsibility, not mine.

Nice try at some misdirection though.

By: Da King

Da King — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:03:35 +0000

Andrea,
Today, Obama said his goal was to cut the deficit to about $533 billion by 2013. He's going to run trillion+ dollar deficits for at least the first couple years. According to Obama's own projections, he will match Bush's 8 year debt runup in only 4 years or less. I guess that's change you can believe in, but not me. That's not change at all.

Nice job pretending that Democrats had nothing to do with the banks giving loans to people who couldn't afford them, which led to the housing meltdown. That takes a huge dose of cognitive dissonance. I guess you never heard of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, ACORN, NAN, the Community Reinvestment Act, the update to that act, banks being fined for not giving enough loans to low-income people, banks being sued for the same, banks being denied mergers for the same, banks being crucified in the newspapers for the same. Democrats were pushing loans to low-income people the entire way, and called Republicans racists and haters of the poor when they wanted to reform Fannie and Freddy, but then when it all blew up, Dems act like they had nothing to do with it. Typical.

And the wealthy pay the highest income tax rates by far, not the lowest. They pay the lion's share of taxes. That's hardly a "free ride."

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:09:21 +0000

Andrea, where did you get all that stuff. I see very little about King's blog entry but then that is how people from the left tend to answer things.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:03:45 +0000

I love those republicans ! The last eight years they’ve put the country almost five trillion dollars deeper into debt at the same time they encourage people to buy homes even if they couldn't afford them. They put five million unemployed people in the streets gave Corporations and the upper 1% of the wealthiest of our country essentially a free ride when it comes to paying taxes and are crying for more tax cuts. Their response to our current situation is that putting money into the economy to bring back jobs and turn the economy around is pork and wasteful spending, and will hurt our grandchildren. But if they could get another 17 billion in tax cuts they most likely hail it as the cure all. So perhaps what is really upsetting them is who the money is going to and who the jobs will go to which bothers them . Some call it pork others will say it is a pork chop and now they can fed their kids.

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:03:20 +0000

larry d. you hit the nail on the head with that one. I am sure that Rev doesn't like to see things like that one, though.

King, with much hand clapping and laughing I read that one with much glee because you managed to be very humorous and very truthful at the same time. Even a downright liberal has to see the humor in that one, especially the lead picture.

By: Tbomb

Tbomb — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:46:34 +0000

The biggest critics of the stimulus bill[Repubs. of course]have identified $25b in "pork".That's 3.2% of the bill.So 97% of the bill is all muscle.Pretty darn good!

By: larry d.

larry d. — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:29:10 +0000

Future generations aren't being represented because they can't vote yet, Reverend.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:18:49 +0000

I expected you're response.

However, your views here seem akin to a neighborhood house burning down and the neighbors refusing to call the fire department, even though their nearby houses are also under threat from the fire.

Oddly, or maybe not, you say that Obama is "stealing" future taxpayer money. I always thought America organized itself around a representative democracy. The representatives voting in the overall interests of the citizenry. You call that "stealing."