Money for Termin8tor


Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
10 Dec 2016, 12:21 pm

Post 10 Dec 2016, 12:21 pm
Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
The Democrat Party is in deep, deep trouble. It's most active, reliable demographic is the Left.

Democrats are in the worst shape in roughly 100 years and deservedly so.

The party won't come back until moderates take power, which will involve a huge, bitter struggle.

.

Image
1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
09 Dec 2016, 8:54 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Misty » 08 Dec 2016 11:13 pm wrote:
So Trump appoints a fast food CEO to head the Dept. of Labor who does not believe in raising the minimum wage (which Trump said he would raise to $10 an hour) is against expanding overtime pay and would like to replace all of his workers with robots.


Only an ignoramus would deny that raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low wage workers and the economy, Dim, and the same for Obama's' illegal overtime rule, bad for all workers.

If government can raise wages without consequence, why not double everyone's pay?

Imbecile. :\

Somebody tell me again how Trump is for the working class?


The Trump Boom is about to begin.

You'll whine and bleat and lie and dissemble the entire time. :rofl: :rofl:


Say, how is that glorious Obama Economy doing? Obviously most Americans didn't buy that swill. :clap:
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
09 Dec 2016, 8:44 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Misty » 09 Dec 2016 3:37 pm wrote:
Do you really expect anyone to believe that your endless smears of Bush were a prediction?


Any idiot could see that there was a HUGE bubble in the housing market where basically all people had to do to get a mortgage was sign their name.
The lenders invented all kinds of exotic mortgages and people with no money for down payments, and bad credit histories were given loans without even an income check.
WTF did you think was going to happen?


Yes, the Democrat Party is to blame for the Financial Freeze, as even the key reporter for the liberal NY Times admitted in a book he co-wrote.
Liars like you claim otherwise.

Almost no one predicted a financial crisis. I knew there was a bubble, but just figured it would peak and deflate on its own.

The only dramatic rise has probably been the one that took place in your pants.
Congratulations Puss.
I guess your dick finally got hard.

Image


.

Oh my, the smear artist is lying again, cutting out a key part of my post that made it an obvious joke.

Psychopath. :blink:
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
10 Dec 2016, 11:10 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Misty » 09 Dec 2016 8:56 pm wrote:

Save that hogwash for someone who believes it.


"Someone" like the WSJ, IBD, Forbes, National Review, American Spectator, almost all Repubs and even the NY Times lead reporter on the issue?

To name just a few.

Who's on your side other than the usual collection of liberal-left incompetents and liars? :rofl:

The majority of the bad loans were made between 2004 and 2006 when W was pushing his home ownership agenda really hard.


Bush played a small role, but the worst damage was done under Clinton, worsened over time as buyers with good credit slowly learned of the deals bad credit buyers were getting, and demanded the same for themselves.

Yet you continue to absolve him of any blame, because you are a partisan hack.


A blatant, repeated lie because I have NEVER absolved Bush of all blame. I have always attributed some blame to him.

But it is literally impossible for Bush to have done that much damage that quickly, and further, he many times tried to reform Fannie Mae and liberal lending policies only to be unanimously obstructed by Democrats including then Senator Obama, as conservatives have documented over and over and over and over.

Met by your endless lies and dissembling, you utter hack. :\
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
11 Dec 2016, 8:21 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Misty » 11 Dec 2016 4:52 pm wrote:
Clinton was not the POTUS between 2004 and 2006 when the majority of the bad loans were made.

Yeah. You said he 'played a small role' which is a bunch of bullshit.
I have posted the video many times of the speeches that Bush gave pushing lenders to give mortgages to people with 'no money for down payments' and 'bad credit histories' his words, not mine.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.


You're almost certainly the worst lying shill for the Democrat on the board. :\

These are two of the most astute minds on Economics and related policy.

Are the Clintons the Real Housing-Crash Villains?

by LARRY KUDLOW & STEPHEN MOORE

....The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Under his HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in “credit-deprived” areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn’t comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits. These new HUD rules lowered down payments from the traditional 20 percent to 3 percent by 1995 and to 0 percent by 2000. What’s more, within Bill Clinton’s push to issue home loans to lower-income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made it common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job histories were thrown aside. Under Bill Clinton, the phrase “subprime” became commonplace. What an understatement.
.....Next, the Clinton administration’s rules ordered taxpayer-backed Fannie and Freddie to expand their quotas of risky loans from 30 percent of portfolio to 50 percent as part of a big push to expand home ownership. Fannie and Freddie were securitizing these home loans and offering 100 percent taxpayer guarantees of repayment. So now taxpayers were on the hook for these risky, low-down-payment loans.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... h-villains
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
12 Dec 2016, 10:13 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2016 10:02 pm wrote:
It is on you to take a factually incorrect statement from zinn's book and expose it as false - otherwise, all you've done is parrot other men's notions: something you're well known for, shoulder pet.


Babbles the lightweight who posts a Bush speech as proof of his psychotic claims. :rofl: :rofl:

Zinn continues (without irony): “When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.”

Rather than an event that inspired movements for freedom and self-government throughout the world through the present, the American Founding is portrayed as a virtually totalitarian system of oppression. If the Founders wanted a society they could direct, why didn’t they establish a dictatorship or a monarchy and model their rule on what was the universal form of government at the time?

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493


Zinn gets history just about backwards. The Constitution was written to PREVENT federal control over Americans' lives. :rofl: :rofl:
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
11 Dec 2016, 7:53 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
roadkill » 11 Dec 2016 6:03 pm wrote:
Be patient...I'm trying to wean futz off of fake history...


"Who is the most influential historian in America? Could it be Pulitzer Prize winners Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. or Joseph Ellis or David McCullough, whose scholarly works have reached a broad literary public? The answer is none of the above. The accolade belongs instead to the unreconstructed, anti-American Marxist Howard Zinn, whose cartoon anti-history of the United States is still selling 128,000 copies a year twenty years after its original publication. Many of those copies are assigned readings for courses in colleges and high schools taught by leftist disciples of their radical mentor."

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493


Howard Zinn was a communist at one point and never really moderated his philosophy.

He wasn't an historian. He was as leftist Propagandist.

Stunning that the liberal-run public schools and higher ed push his book over most others.
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
11 Dec 2016, 9:00 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2016 6:54 pm wrote:
Termin8tor » 11 Dec 2016 6:53 pm wrote:Howard Zinn was a communist at one point and never really moderated his philosophy.
He wasn't an historian. He was as leftist Propagandist.
Stunning that the liberal-run public schools and higher ed push his book over most others.


Well, there's our proof that zinn is wrong. A twatwaffle said stuff.


What do you offer other than ignorance, psychotic babbling, lies and obscenities? :\

Former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, now the president of Purdue University, has impeccable taste in historians. Upon the death of Howard Zinn in 2010, he wrote an e-mail to his advisers about Zinn’s most famous work, A People’s History of the United States. “It is a truly execrable, anti-factual piece of disinformation that misstates American history on every page,” he said. “Can someone assure me that it is not in use anywhere in Indiana? If it is, how do we get rid of it before any more young people are force-fed a totally false version of our history?”.....
You would never guess from the hysterics that the low estimation that Daniels has for Zinn’s work is shared by a swath of distinguished historians. It’s not that they disagree with Zinn or believe he’s too controversial. They think his work is, to borrow the word Daniels used in another e-mail, “crap.” As Michael Moynihan pointed out in Reason magazine, much of the incoming fire comes from Zinn’s more intellectually credible comrades on the left. Sean Wilentz describes Zinn’s work as “balefully influential.” Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. called him “a polemicist, not a historian.” The New Republic recently ran a review of a biography of Zinn under the headline “Agit-Prof.” Even the aforementioned Michael Kazin believes Zinn “essentially reduced the past to a Manichean fable.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... rich-lowry
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
12 Dec 2016, 9:06 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2016 10:02 pm wrote:
Termin8tor » 11 Dec 2016 8:00 pm wrote:What do you offer other than ignorance, psychotic babbling, lies and obscenities?
Image


What do I OWE, cretin?


You owe me 100's of corrections the many times I've proven you stupidly wrong, psycho.

You have a little integrity as little Miss Marxist.

It is on you to take a factually incorrect statement from zinn's book and expose it as false - otherwise, all you've done is parrot other men's notions: something you're well known for, shoulder pet.


Correct some of the many, many times I've shown you to be wrong. Admit that you cherry picked the few predictions I got wrong, when in fact I got most correct.


If not, go f*** yourself.
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
12 Dec 2016, 9:11 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2016 10:02 pm wrote:
Termin8tor » 11 Dec 2016 8:00 pm wrote:What do you offer other than ignorance, psychotic babbling, lies and obscenities?
Image


It is on you to take a factually incorrect statement from zinn's book and expose it as false - otherwise, all you've done is parrot other men's notions: something you're well known for, shoulder pet.


What an ignorant, pathetic little dweeb you are.

Through Zinn’s looking-glass, Maoist China, site of history’s bloodiest state-sponsored killings, becomes “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control.”

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493


So "the people" wanted to butcher at least 50 million of their fellow Chinese, Dim?
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
10 Dec 2016, 11:18 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
The US faces roughly $100 trillion in unfunded entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare, both of which are headed to insolvency.

And liberals don't have the slightest idea or plan how to prevent that, other than to stupidly claim raising taxes on the rich will solve it, which anyone with eyes can see literally cannot.

Key GOP congressman proposes significant Social Security reforms
By Rick Moran
Texas Congressman Sam Johnson, chairman of the Social Security subcommittee, has proposed a series of reforms that will at least partially alleviate the funding problem facing the program which will run out of money by 2034.
Of the many changes proposed is a recalculation of the inflation index that will reduce or eliminate cost of living increases for wealthy recipients while increasing benefits for the poor. Significantly, the package does not include any tax increases.

Washington Examiner:
The bill put forward by Texas' Sam Johnson, the chairman of the subcommittee on Social Security, would reduce costs by changing the benefits formula to reduce payments progressively for high earners. It would also gradually raise the full retirement age from 67 to 69 for people who are today 49 or younger. Lastly, it would change the inflation metric used to calculate benefits to one that shows lower inflation, essentially slowing the growth in benefits, and eliminate cost of living adjustments for high earners.
On the flipside, it would increase benefits for lower-income workers, and raise the minimum benefit for low-earners who worked full careers.
Johnson called the plan the "start of a fact-based conversation" on how to fix Social Security's finances.

Social Security's trust funds for retirement and disability payments are projected to run out by 2034 if Congress doesn't take action. At that point, beneficiaries would see an immediate cut in benefits of about a fifth.
Johnson's is one version of reform to stave off that possibility. This summer, a bipartisan group of lawmakers also put forward legislation that would improve Social Security's finances in part by raising payroll taxes.
President-elect Trump has suggested that he wants to crack down on waste and fraud in Social Security, but isn't interested in a broad overhaul of the retirement program.
Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have moved to the left on Social Security, with key lawmakers favoring an increase in benefits for some groups, rather than any reductions.
With Trump not necessarily enthusiastic about significant reform, the proposals don't have much of a chance. Only a president 100% committed to the project, willing to expend his political capital, can expect to have any success at all.
But 2018 is an election year, making it extremely unlikely that politicians from either side will want to touch "the third rail of American politics."
Trump may want to avoid the controversy entirely during his first term, leaving the issue to germinate until/if he is re-elected in 2020. He's got a full plate already of very significant issues that need to be addressed and there is very little upside to adding Social Security to the mix.
Texas Congressman Sam Johnson, chairman of the Social Security subcommittee, has proposed a series of reforms that will at least partially alleviate the funding problem facing the program which will run out of money by 2034.
Of the many changes proposed is a recalculation of the inflation index that will reduce or eliminate cost of living increases for wealthy recipients while increasing benefits for the poor. Significantly, the package does not include any tax increases.
Washington Examiner:
The bill put forward by Texas' Sam Johnson, the chairman of the subcommittee on Social Security, would reduce costs by changing the benefits formula to reduce payments progressively for high earners. It would also gradually raise the full retirement age from 67 to 69 for people who are today 49 or younger. Lastly, it would change the inflation metric used to calculate benefits to one that shows lower inflation, essentially slowing the growth in benefits, and eliminate cost of living adjustments for high earners.
On the flipside, it would increase benefits for lower-income workers, and raise the minimum benefit for low-earners who worked full careers.
Johnson called the plan the "start of a fact-based conversation" on how to fix Social Security's finances.

Social Security's trust funds for retirement and disability payments are projected to run out by 2034 if Congress doesn't take action. At that point, beneficiaries would see an immediate cut in benefits of about a fifth.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... z4SS77LKcg
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
10 Dec 2016, 11:35 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
nefarious101 » 10 Dec 2016 10:28 am wrote:
Progressivism is a huge problem in education...it needs to be rooted of there too


That won't be the first thing on the agenda, but Congress could investigate Higher Ed, then withhold funding to colleges and universities whose faculty are far left, who don't have enough conservatives.

There is going to be a lot of shrieking and wailing among liberals. :)
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
11 Dec 2016, 10:50 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2016 3:03 am wrote:
1. If you go another thousand years into the future, you can increase that by ANOTHER thousand trillion.

However, when you pretend that the retirements (social security benefits) of the unborn are a "mandate," then any honest conversation would require you to include their not-yet-earned and not-yet-paid social security contributions as "funding," for the purpose of that conversation. If you ONLY count the theoretical, not-yet-due "mandate," and you IGNORE the theoretical, not-yet-contributed "funding," then you end up with a dishonest "unfunded mandate" conversation.

Is it your intention to be dishonest, or have you merely failed to think this argument through before copy-pasting it?


WTF are you babbling about 1,000 years for, psycho? My time period is relatively short, a matter of decades. Unless vast reform is made and growth is restored, it will be literally impossible to meet these obligations, quite possibly resulting in economic collapse.

Are you being intentionally stupid or intentionally deceitful? :blink:

2. The last time republicans had control of the federal government, they created multiple significant unfunded mandates, including Medicare Part D, the misnamed "Obama-phone," the infamous home-ownership entitlement program which virtually all conservative authorities agree crashed our economy, and the federal "bailouts" which swelled the bank accounts of Wall Street insiders by sacking the accounts of Main Street Americans.

For this reason, it is dishonest and corrupt to pretend that entitlements are a "liberal" convention. You must FIRST get YOUR part to stop creating entitlements, BEFORE you whine about others doing so. That's known as "avoiding hypocrisy," which would be a very new thing for you, clemtard.


Bush governed as a "compassionate conservative," i.e. he pushed some liberal policies. That's one reason the Tea Party began, albeit years later; resentment of Bush's overspending. That did reform our party, moonbat.

And the Financial Freeze was caused mostly be actions and policies take happened long before Bush took office.

Imbecile. :\

3. The eight years of Clinton saw no new entitlements. The eight years of Bush saw a dozen. The eight years of Obama saw one - ACA.

4. Can you dispute 3? If not, your claim is hypocritical on its face. If so, please do - with verifiable facts, not with your usual harrumphing and moonbattery.


It isn't the number of entitlements, Dim, it's the size of them. Obamacare dwarfs anything Bush did, along with its accompanying expansion of Medicaid.

Babbling psychotic.
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
11 Dec 2016, 8:39 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 11 Dec 2016 6:11 pm wrote:
Termin8tor » 11 Dec 2016 9:54 am wrote:The Clinton administration vastly expanded coerced lending by banks and more to blame than any other administration.


Sorry, faggot. I can prove you're a liar.

The following is Bush LAYING OUT the program that CRASHED THE ECONOMY according to every authoritative conservative journal and talking head:


Tell some more lies, you ever-puking narcissist.


Oh my, Bush gave a speech! Two or three, even. :clap:

Maybe you think the sun would rise in the West if he gave a speech recommending that, Dim. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Here's actual evidence, psycho.

Are the Clintons the Real Housing-Crash Villains?
by LARRY KUDLOW & STEPHEN MOORE

......The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Under his HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in “credit-deprived” areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn’t comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.
These new HUD rules lowered down payments from the traditional 20 percent to 3 percent by 1995 and to 0 percent by 2000. What’s more, within Bill Clinton’s push to issue home loans to lower-income borrowers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made it common practice to virtually end credit documentation, low credit scores were disregarded, and income and job histories were thrown aside.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... h-villains
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
12 Dec 2016, 9:22 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
JunkerGreen » 11 Dec 2016 8:11 pm wrote:
Termin8tor » 11 Dec 2016 8:03 pm wrote:True, but that optimism is based on Trump and politicians actually trying to enact reforms, and the ability to get them by a Democrat filibuster in the Senate.
And given that we've gone on for decades with few reforms, pessimism might be best deserved.


First, you have a vast misunderstanding of how government works, and second neglect the recent changes to the filibuster. Democrats can't stop any of Trumps appointments except to the Supreme Court, and ultimately the President enforces the rules, regulations, and laws of the United States. Most of his campaign promises can be fulfilled without Congressional action. Congress would have to fund a wall, but not strict enforcement of immigration laws.


I understand quite well how government works, and that the most dedicated president can be thwarted by the vast bureaucracies who oppose or even undermine him.

There is absolutely no way that the Justice Dept can be reformed without the ability to discipline or fire the leftist munchkins entrenched there; likely the EPA as well.
It will require legislation to truly reform those bureaucracies, and Democrats will filibuster them. Legislation will also be necessary to replace Obamacare, which Dems can also filibuster.

Yes, key appointments and judges will bypass the filibuster, but I highly doubt Repubs will drop the filibuster for legislation.

I fully expect Trump to be a total disaster, but you never know. So far I'm very fond of some of his cabinet appointments, and that might be all it takes.


There are considerable risks given his protectionism and promise to induce business behavior with his heavy hand, but I expect his presidency to be good, if not great.

Reagan's presidency, as great as it was, was simply a temporary respite in the growth of government. If Trump is successful, he will permanently roll back the size and scope of it.
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
13 Dec 2016, 9:02 pm

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 13 Dec 2016 7:39 pm wrote:
Termin8tor » 13 Dec 2016 8:40 am wrote:Anyone and everyone with brains has acknowledged the huge Reagan Boom, Dim.
More jobs were created in Reagan's best month

than in Obama's average year, and the country was 1/3 smaller when Reagan was president.


From forbes, chin-pussy:


Unlike you, psycho, I have a subscription to Forbes Magazine and have for decades, and no columnist every carried in the actual magazine would support your stupid claim.

Must be from some liberal moonbat carried on their website.

Further, it doesn't take into account conditions a president faces when taking office; Carter inherited a moderately health economy and drove it into the ground.

Reagan inherited Carter's disaster and turned it into an historic boom.

That isn't debatable. It's in the books, Dim.
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
14 Dec 2016, 9:28 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 13 Dec 2016 10:29 pm wrote:
Termin8tor » 13 Dec 2016 9:04 pm wrote:As utterly stupid as it sounds, the board psychotic claims that Carter out performed Reagan on the economy.
Image
Image
Image
Yes, Carter did manage a few positive accomplishments, but overall he was a disaster.


Your source is a well established right wing advocacy site - their numbers are not trustworthy.


Oh well then let's take the word of a lying psychotic like you!

Imbecile. :rofl: :rofl:


Come on, is this the best you can do? :clap:

Cato is highly respected.
-1

Termin8tor's Photo
Posted by Termin8tor
14 Dec 2016, 9:30 am

Termin8tor       
      

Posts: 8117
Cannonpointer » 13 Dec 2016 10:29 pm wrote:
Your source is a well established right wing advocacy site - their numbers are not trustworthy. They show Clinton's economy growing less than Carter - a perfectly ridiculous claim. Do you really expect adults to respect that silliness?

Here is CATO completely destroyed for cooking the books: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13851&p=477270&hilit=+CATO#p477270


I was expecting a sound source when I followed the link. Instead, it was just your usual idiocy.

You mindless babbling doesn't destroy anything, Dim. :\

Give a respected source beyond your stupidity that supports your claim. Rotsa ruck, imbecile.
-1