And who exactly is piloting those aircraft against their own citizenry? Is it the "guvment"? You realize that isn't like a thing right? You aren't really painting a picture of a realistic rise of tyrannical regime. More likely they'd start it off by collecting everyone's weapons. Then they'd park ARs on every street corner. Most of these guys that are armed, or "prepping" are former servicemen themselves. Methinks you overestimate our military's willingness to fire on their own people.

Further, the issue more has to do with corrupt local enforcement, or fear of economic collapse (in which case, who knows who's piloting the death from the sky). Do you think the black panthers were completely unjustified in their show of force? Should they have allowed racist policing of their neighborhoods?

"Most economists" did not see the collapse coming, so why believe "most economists" know anything now?

The economic collapse was set in motion with the Free Houses for Poor People Act in the 70s, a liberal creation muscled-up during the Clinton years.

Government "guaranteed" bank loans to people who had no business owning homes, because it's "unfair" that not everyone has a house. So, half-coercion, half promising bailouts with taxpayer money.

Even in decades-old systems like Medicare, where you'd think there would be built-in watchdogs, we lose 60 billion A YEAR to fraud, waste and abuse, so how anyone sane thought a one-time scamulus would be closely monitored for fraud...

A similar Nude Eel scamulus was attempted in the 40s with little to no effect. FDR's bacon was only saved by WW2.


Government: If you think the problems are bad, wait till you see our solutions!

Let's skip over the lawlessness and millions of "the 99%'s" taxpayer dollars wasted arresting the rabble and cleaning up the feces, and get to the point:

The housing/economic collapse is the result of idiot carter and liberals deciding in the 70s that "everyone" should have a house whether they can afford one or not. The same sh1t law, the "Community Reinvestment Act" was strengthened by idiot clinton.

What did these fking idiots think the banks would do when ORDERED to lend money to anybody, and don't worry, big govt has your backs and will make everything "risk-free"?

Well here we are, and true to form, the banks, complicit in this socialist scheme, got a nice payout from the taxpayers.

I want to kill the thieving motherfkers as much as anyone, but why blame the banks when it was government that created this "fairness" bullsh1te to buy votes, and enriched banks with promises of "no-risk" investments and threats if they didn't comply?

In essence, the occupoopers are demanding government institute fairness at gunpoint, as a reaction to a needless crisis caused by...government fairness at gunpoint.

>> ^alien_concept:

Now if we could just make the resolution to the economic collapse a competition, @mintbbb would be on task to save the world!!


Only if there's a mug in it. I want to drink my pie-soup out of this glorious containment thingy!

Now if we could just make the resolution to the economic collapse a competition, @mintbbb would be on task to save the world!!

>> ^quantumushroom:

That would be one barrel of oil per illegal PER DIEM.
You libs are experts at crying racism and demanding higher taxes. National defense, stable prosperous economies, job creation, crime control, etc., not so much.
Everylib: "Someone else will pay for undocumented workers' crime and welfare drain."

P.S. 'Someone else' is YOU, Doltholomew!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Shit Michael Savage is dumb. That program would literally last all of two days.
The United States consumes 7 millions barrel per day.
There are only about 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico at last count, 18 million tops.
Hah, And those were pre-economic collapse numbers.
Not to mention the mass exodus that took place after all the new Arizona SB 1070 type laws were enacted in multiple states.
How to be Conservative Radio Host 101: Say the most incendiary, convoluted scenario that comes to mind.
Make bank on all the Pinheads like QM that crave ignorance and hate.
>> ^quantumushroom:
"I envision an Oil for Illegals program. . .The president should demand one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal alien that sneaks into our country."
SAVAGE.




Mexican workers are costing the US taxpayer half a trillion dollars a year??!!!
At $100/ barrel / worker / day it's about that annually..
For that money we could invade them and take ALL their oil!
Quick give QM a badge!!

That would be one barrel of oil per illegal PER DIEM.

You libs are experts at crying racism and demanding higher taxes. National defense, stable prosperous economies, job creation, crime control, etc., not so much.

Everylib: "Someone else* will pay for undocumented workers' crime and welfare drain."


* P.S. 'Someone else' is YOU, Doltholomew!


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Shit Michael Savage is dumb. That program would literally last all of two days.
The United States consumes 7 millions barrel per day.
There are only about 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico at last count, 18 million tops.
Hah, And those were pre-economic collapse numbers.
Not to mention the mass exodus that took place after all the new Arizona SB 1070 type laws were enacted in multiple states.
How to be Conservative Radio Host 101: Say the most incendiary, convoluted scenario that comes to mind.
Make bank on all the Pinheads like QM that crave ignorance and hate.
>> ^quantumushroom:
"I envision an Oil for Illegals program. . .The president should demand one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal alien that sneaks into our country."
SAVAGE.

Shit Michael Savage is dumb. That program would literally last all of two days.

The United States consumes 7 millions barrel per day.
There are only about 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico at last count, 18 million tops.

Hah, And those were pre-economic collapse numbers.
Not to mention the mass exodus that took place after all the new Arizona SB 1070 type laws were enacted in multiple states.

How to be Conservative Radio Host 101: Say the most incendiary, convoluted scenario that comes to mind.

Make bank on all the Pinheads like QM that crave ignorance and hate.
>> ^quantumushroom:

"I envision an Oil for Illegals program. . .The president should demand one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal alien that sneaks into our country."
SAVAGE.

Aw - the Frankfurter is sad because of a lack of substance? Well - maybe he'd have been happier if the reporter had dove into the following topics of substance...

1. Frank's role in the housing and banking collapse (IE his role with AIG in pushing the repeal of Glass-Steagall)...
2. The coverup of fixing parking tickets for the prostitution ring that was run out of his house...
3. Frank's involvement in a banking scandal in Boston with OneUnited...
4. Frank's abuse of office in forcing Fannie Mae to hire his lover, Herb Moses.
5. Falsification of documents where he claimed a $30,000 'gift' from hedge fund manager Donald Sussman was only $1,500...

Just a few 'substantive' issues that may this total sack of crap would have preferred to discuss. Barney Frank is one of the primary reasons for the recession. It is always impossible to pin such a big thing down to just one person, but if you could name one person that was to blame for the economic collapse it would be Barney Frank. This piece of human filth should be dragged out of Congress today, banned from all public service for life, should have every penny he owns confiscated, and then he should be tarred & feathered, pilloried, and tossed in a dank prison cell for the rest of his miserable, misbegotten life.

And that would be letting him off easy.

I don't agree that Fox News blames poor people for economic collapse. Poor people have very little power. Now politicians...that's another story. They have all the power. They make the rules and regulations and their policies led to the economic collapse.

Only a dogmatic right winger could say that with a straight face. And in the later sentence you proved it. You're so convinced it couldn't have been the free market, you are willing to accept any explanation for the economic collapse that pinned most of the blame on the government.

And it's categorically absurd. Yes, absolutely, the gov't played a role, but the overwhelming majority of the collapse was due to derivatives and CDOs. The only conceivable explanation for the gov't being the primary root cause is either they didn't regulate as they should have, which actually ends up being the antithesis of your argument because it advocates gov't taking a much more involved role from here on out, or it's because of initiatives by the gov't to increase homeownership by giving loans out to people who had little chance to pay it back. Of the later, the simple fact of the matter is the vast majority of the subprime loans were given out by subprime lenders, not Fannie and Freddie, before Fannie and Freddie entered into that market. Even when considering in the end all subprime loans including Fannie and Freddie, the odds of default on subprime loans were several fold higher with subprime lenders than Fannie/Freddie.

And why did CDOs containing subprime loans get pushed up into investment vehicles that could be purchased by retirement programs like 401k, etc., which fueled their growth? Fannie and Freddie backed loans and non-Fannie/Freddie backed loans were both in funds rated AAA by ratings agencies that were not regulated by the US gov't. Instead, they were paid by the investment houses that gave them the investment funds to rate in the first place. No gov't agency put a gun to their head and made them slap lipstick on those pigs.

Absolutely, Fannie and Freddie helped to legitimize subprime lending, but the simple fact of the matter is Fannie and Freddie were late to the subprime game. They even thought that they almost had to in order to, survey says, COMPETE THE MORTGAGE MARKET! Oh yes, that's right, they were compelled to enter into these dangerous loans because they were losing market share to the Countrywide's of the mortgage industry. While gov't certainly liked the idea of the result in increased home ownership rates this would cause, no gov't agency put a gun to their heads to issue subprime loans specifically. They chose to jump into those waters.

The Great Recession is in the end more about what happens when the free market, particularly the financial sector, isn't regulated effectively. I don't blame the financial industry for inventing derivatives and CDOs. Both instruments can be used to reduce risk for all parties involved, and potentially to the entire system. But they inadvertently created a system that led to its own collapse because no entity watched over the system as a whole. How could the investment banks have known they comprised entities that should any of them fail, they would cause the entire system to collapse because of the intricate web of these CDOs and derivatives? How could they possibly know AIG was overextended on derivatives? They simply aren't equipped or structured to know this. But some entity should have, and the ONLY possible answer is the gov't. I'm even sympathetic to the view the gov't as is cannot possibly do this, but that means we need to fashion a gov't that can. It's the only answer.

>> ^lantern53:

Now Wall St. may have fouled up but it was the US gov't which was holding the gun to it's head. Only a gov't could foul things up this badly.

>> ^quantumushroom:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbt_12bs1n_
40#usgs302
Defense is 16% of the budget. Health, Education and Welfare are all close.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Sure it looks cool. The technology is extremely impressive. BUT the cash can be far better spent elsewhere. When citizens in this country are dealing with poverty and economic collapse, buying a fighter jet is plain stupid.



Uh, you quoted the wrong table--that table is the aggregate of all federal, state, and local spending, which drastically dilutes the numbers. The actual federal table is here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_fed

You can see that defense is 25% of the federal budget. Second comes health care at 23% (Medicade, etc.), and third comes pensions at 21% (Social Security). Education, which I would argue is probably the greatest defense against warfare, gets a whopping 3% nod from the feds.

>> ^quantumushroom:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbt_12bs1n_
40#usgs302
Defense is 16% of the budget. Health, Education and Welfare are all close.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Sure it looks cool. The technology is extremely impressive. BUT the cash can be far better spent elsewhere. When citizens in this country are dealing with poverty and economic collapse, buying a fighter jet is plain stupid.



Are you saying this as if it's right?

You spend more on building and maintaining things for killing people than you do on teaching people (16% vs 14%), you spend a lot more on killing people than caring for those in need (16% vs 11%), only a fraction of what is spent on war is spent on giving decent transportation to you all (16% vs 4%), and healthcare is barely above war (16% vs 18%)... What if... crazy, I know, what if you cut that spending, that $964 BILLION (That's almost a fricken TRILLION dollars) in half... you'd have $480 BILLION to spend on BETTER things than armies and fucking weapons.

It's utterly sickening that your healthcare and education are scrounging for funds when that insane amount of money is available for use.

Sickening.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbt_12bs1n_40#usgs302

Defense is 16% of the budget. Health, Education and Welfare are all close.



>> ^honkeytonk73:

Sure it looks cool. The technology is extremely impressive. BUT the cash can be far better spent elsewhere. When citizens in this country are dealing with poverty and economic collapse, buying a fighter jet is plain stupid.

Sure it looks cool. The technology is extremely impressive. BUT the cash can be far better spent elsewhere. When citizens in this country are dealing with poverty and economic collapse, buying a fighter jet is plain stupid.