Democrat Hypocrisy on Full Display…Another Non-Issue by the Left

Originally posted by AliceBlackman

Originally posted by Beanskinner

Don't talk to to me about it -

You should talk to the other folks and the neocons who like the bankers and such

Approaching derivatives would be communist or something I suspect

edit on 25-5-2012 by Beanskinner because: (no reason given)

I'm totally amazed that there is so much bickering going on about..Well yes people should have equal pay, but it's the ECONOMY we need to deal with debate..And PEOPLE are still IGNORING the $1.4 QUADRILLION $ Gorilla in the ROOM... well cutting taxes, slashing Govt expenditure or stimulating our way out ... will all be a complete waste of time if we don't put a stop to the OUT OF CONTROL GAMBLING or speculation as they like to call it in Derivatives (or BETS as we call them).... as well as thinking about an ECONOMY..Because there won’t be one. (Hence all the indefinite detention, additional snooping bills, more drones ….).

The hypocrisy that bothers me is practically all of our politicians are accepting money from our BIG 5 banks to look the other way to their gambling addiction that really could TOTALLY collapse the whole world’s economy..But hey... it's nothing..Chase only lost another $2 billion on these things the other day...
It's all the Major Banks involved in these massive side bets (GLOBALLY).

2008 was really about institutions not being able to pay the side bets they made on the American home loan market.
Well guess what they have carried on regardless like drunken "gods"
The notional value of the derivative market is roughly $1.4 QUADRILLION.
$1.4 Quadrillion is roughly:
-40 TIMES THE WORLD’S STOCK MARKET.
-10 TIMES the value of EVERY STOCK & EVERY BOND ON THE PLANET.
-23 TIMES WORLD GDP.
For many, alarm bells went off this year when it was revealed that Bank of America has moved a big chunk of derivatives from its failing Merrill Lynch investment banking unit to its depository arm.
So what does that mean?
This means that the investment bank's European derivatives exposure is now backstopped by U.S. taxpayers. Bank of America didn't get regulatory approval to do this; they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties. Now the Fed and the FDIC are fighting as to whether this was sound.
The Fed wants to "give relief" to the bank holding company, which is under heavy pressure.
This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input.

TARP, aka the monstrous $800 billion bailout of Wall Street "speculators" which was enacted in October 2008 with the support of Bush, Henry Paulson, John McCain and the Obama Democrats.

theeconomiccollapseblog.com...


Thats right, wipe out all of are deposits, while they will expect to be refunded, somehow?

Thats what you get when you eliminate all the rules to the game, or you let them write the

rules using business friendly politicians as proxies.

reply to post by Beanskinner
China will only buy if we sell.

As for government intervention, intrusion.

Some welcome it. Some feel that there is a dumbing down in America that precipitates a need for government.

But gvernment is responsible for that "dumbing down."

To encourage government involvement, would only endorse the dumbing down that is taking place.

Originally posted by neo96

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Hypocrites indeed!!!!

Come on now live up to the standards you set for others wait no?

Then shut up about it.

I fully agree with you!

Larry Craig. Jerry Fallwell. Rush Limbaugh. Newt Gingrich. Michelle Bachmann, Etc, etc, etc.

You can tell lefty on this thread pretty easily... just look for the people desperately discussing EVERYTHING but The ISSUE the OP brought up.

So let me get this straight lefties it's perfectly ok for you to lambast right swinging politicians on everything you see them doing that's wrong or hypocritical, but when someone points out an issue coming from your side of the aisle that's being unfair, just plain mean, or ,.... HEY LOOK A DISTRACTION!

Personally I've been disgusted with both sides for too long to count but really lefties you guys need to get a grip! At least right wingers KNOW and ADMIT their politicians are not saints.

Contrast this with the Left leaning members of society who have been responsible for such gems as a teacher telling an 8th grader they could go to jail for disagreeing with Obama, and this thread's amazing ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies all as a desperation ploy to do ANYTHING BUT ADMIT THAT YOUR SIDE IS JUST AS BAD.

I will give you another example of the hypocrisy of this particular administration, though it is not about women in particular.
I have been reading this book, "The Amateur" by Edward Klein. On pp 44-45, he explains that David Axelrod and Obama both told Rev Wright that he would have to tone down his racist rhetoric in his invocation to his flock while Obama was going to be campaigning in Iowa. Perhaps you all have heard about this on the news, but I'm now reading it in his book. First they tell the Rev he is not to sound exclusionary, that they want him to sound more "egalitarian" so that the "Iowa farmers" don't get upset. Then they call him after that and tell him in fact they don't want him to do the invocation after all because Rolling Stone had gotten a particularly venomous sermon of his demonizing white people as still being racist supremacists. So, Obama wanted the Rev to still reperesent him, or rather his Trinity Church,but he didn't want him to reveal the real stuff he says to his congregation every week. So instead they had his successor, a guy named Otis to give the invocation. Obama told Wright that he didn't want him to become the focus of the media.
Wow, this is really amazing stuff!
So if Obama pretends to love women and pretends he is going to help them, I am not buying for ONE millisecond. Everything he does is for his own campaign and his own ambition.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

China will only buy if we sell.

As for government intervention, intrusion.

Some welcome it. Some feel that there is a dumbing down in America that precipitates a need for government.

But gvernment is responsible for that "dumbing down."

To encourage government involvement, would only endorse the dumbing down that is taking place.

edit on 25-5-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

You act as if WE are a collective.

WE for the most part are motivated by money, especially in the business world.

I posted just three examples cited in Economics theory, there are thousands of

examples where a country specific can be undermined or gamed by other nations

or unscrupulous business figures.

When you say the government is responsible for that dumbing down, you are in effect

dumbing down.

The media and the corporations that design the marketing of ideas are also major factors

in the death of critical thought. Major components -

To discourage government involvement in some area can also be an act of dumbing down,

especially if it motivated by an emotional bias.

Lets try this one to see the dumbing down

European banks transfer all their faulty debt and holdings into American Banks -

Those European Bankers take short positions on the American Banks

When the European Banks fail, they turn around and cash in on their short positions

While the American banks and more importantly the American depositors are wiped out.

It would be extremely dumb, not to protect the American Economic system against such

a scheme, because the economy represents national security and it is our money.

Letting banks formulate their own policies on this would be dumb, because the easiest

way to profit is to rig the system to create the result you rigged into the system in the first place.

reply to post by Beanskinner


Everyone knows that when we talk about "dumbing down" the populace, we are really talking about the educational system and such models of teaching as "values clarification" and other failed educaton policies. Once people are out of high school they can technically pursue whatever else they wish. I heard someone on the radio last night talking about how we are not training engineers the way other countries are. This is because of the Dewey system of preparing children to be cogs in the wheel of the all-supreme State, to function as society wishes them to function.
I can cite stuff about values clarification and John Dewey if necessary. So in effect, yes, it is govt dumbing down the children in the schools because the majority of children grow up through the public school system. We do know that the Elite do not send their kids to public schools, and they do not listen to rap music, they listen to classical music.
Media does function as a way to dumb down people by not encouraging the great classical works. I once mentioned in a class I was attending that when my son was young we took him to the Nutcracker Ballet, and you know what ridicule followed that? But I tell you, that guy's kid will never recognize Beethoven and Haydn at 4, as my son did.

The youth are not encouraged to really absorb some of the most fantastic cultural things, and yet today in the schools, we are told the children are being taught to be broad-minded by accepting certain things which were not the norm a few decades ago. Ok so they are not teaching them to appreciate classical music but they have to be tolerant of certain Progressive agendas.

reply to post by Beanskinner

examples where a country specific can be undermined or gamed by other nations

Did you know that Hillary Clinton sat on the board of Wal-Mart at one point? I have never been sure whether it was before or after they stopped purchasing American goods and started purchasing Chinese goods.

Was that because Americans were dumbed down or because Progressives sat on a board of a major corporation and promoted the purchasing of Chinese goods? Or was it simply because we ran out of American goods to purchase due to Progressives putting too many regulations on business causing many of them to go overseas? Oh, incidentally, I just read last night about how certain people connected with Goldman Sachs(also connected with POTUS) was "joyful" about outsourcing overseas.

How come the only businessman with experience who talked about jobs going overseas and the trade deficit with China had the media do blitzes to mar his reputation and ridicule him in the early days of the Republican campaign during 2011?


By the way beanskinner, your attempt to suggest that government involvement is interfered with by dumbing down from advertising is almost nuts beyond belief. What was your source? And did it by any chance come from a Progressive in education? Oh yeah, JUST the other day, I heard on the radio about how the government is ADVERTISING! Yes, Kathleen Sebelious is ADVERTISING about cancer using TAX DOLLARS.

You seem to be not letting a good crisis go to waste with this business about European banks buying up American assets. The Elite will never pass any legislation which will keep them from doing business as usual, but they will sure hang up the rest of us poor little commoners.
The lie of the serpent is that they must do evil that good may come. The lie of the serpent is that a good crisis must not go to waste because the Elites want to help the commoners.


One thing I will say though, is that your arguments have intesting things in them, and it is so much better than listening to people suggest we are just trolls. Kind of refreshing.

reply to post by Beanskinner

Those European Bankers take short positions on the American Banks

I am more than certain that Soros and his team of 26 have been involved in that at least once. Michael Savage talks about the raiding of the market in his book, "Trickle Up Poverty". The International bankers have no loyalty to country, hence they are all about having no national sovereignty. It is the basis for destroying national sovereignty, which is why I try as much as possible to demolish arguments here against "nationalism".
The late Professor Antony Sutton wrote volumes about the bankers and the Wall Street Establishment.

Here is a list of some of his titles including "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution". there are a few others listed too, but it's mainly Sutton

www.dealoz.com... gle_book_sp_pc_cpc_text&utm_content=7QEj_bjrlSPpGjfZwimC2g&utm_campaign=google_author_book_sp_cpc_author42

reply to post by Beanskinner


You are correct. Obama was involved in TARP, and he has stocked his admnistration with representatives of Goldman-Sachs. While POTUS Is telling us that we should give our wealth to others so that they won't starve, he is making sure we give our wealth to crooks and liars.

reply to post by ringlejames

Waitressing and what not

Who says women work harder at this? I have seen many male "servers' who were phenomenal. But why are you focusing on waiting tables and not on such things as managerial positions and other key positions in corporations? After all, minimum wage is not the area where women are really discriminated against.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

Oh Soros is working alright. He is working toward collapsing the dollar and turning the USA into his vision of Socialist Utopia. Michael Savage explains in his book, "Trickle Up Poverty", how Soros and his band of fund managers raided the market after the elimination of the uptick rule. Soros is who made off with the money after that deregulation.
Obama is in the thick of it.

Seeing how capitalism has been a total failure why not give socialism a try? But then again the European countries where socialism works may be a bad example.

Please give me an example of a European country which is ENTIRELY socialist which is succussful without the help of Capitalist bankers or the transference of monies from the private sector, oh yah, that's right, that is the definition of socialism, the TRANSFERENCE of wealth from the private sector. It is foolish to believe that socialism can exist without stealing the money from the private sector. Even Hitler knew he couldn't get rid of corporations because they were BANKROLLING him.

Originally posted by Beanskinner
Women do get paid less than men in general -

100 years ago, Women got paid 5 times less than men on average for doing the same job.

Today I believe it is near 30%

It is my opinion that if women could magically make as much as men overnight, our

economy would be better off. They would have more to spend, which would increase

sales and a need for more employees, etc. I think women should be paid the same if

their performance merits it and in many cases I think that is the case.

Women are beautiful and hard working just like the rest of us, I like women

These stats always baffle me. Nowhere I have worked do women get paid less than men for the same job and performance. Maybe it is only in tiny companies where this happens. For 20 years in the workforce, nearly every job is on structured salary, with raises based on performance ratings, or commissions. I seriously would like to know where this pay inequality happens.

Funny how it's always a non-issue for people who don't agree with the premise of the issue. It's pretty easy to just dismiss something as a "non-issue" rather than deal with the problem.

Not to mention, the OP says it's a non-issue and then one post later says it's not the biggest issue. So it is an issue, just not enough of one?

Right now in america the educational system teaches to the lowest common denominator...meaning the teacher only teaches to the the dumbest kid in the class doing a dis-service to the smarter kids and if all this legislation takes hold for "fair " pay and the other legislation Blain spoke of earlier pay rates will revert to the lowest common denominator......that is what socialism and fairness for all requires....it does not lift all up....it pulls all down to an equal level.

I prefer the America where we all have a chance to fight for ourselves for the American dream than to all be equal in mediocracy.

reply to post by dogstar23


Out of sheer curiosity...how would you know how much everyone gets paid. I work in an office of four people and have no clue how much anyone gets paid. It is against most companies policies and a general rule of etiquette to not talk about salary. Unless you were in payroll, how did you gain all this information at every place you ever worked at?

reply to post by nunya13


Good point...the only ones who could compare salaries are government/civil service workers because it's public record and they are supposed to be paid the same on a scale or I would think Union heads might get access to the info at companies they control in order to make sure the companies are paying up.

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by Beanskinner
Women do get paid less than men in general -

100 years ago, Women got paid 5 times less than men on average for doing the same job.

Today I believe it is near 30%

It is my opinion that if women could magically make as much as men overnight, our

economy would be better off. They would have more to spend, which would increase

sales and a need for more employees, etc. I think women should be paid the same if

their performance merits it and in many cases I think that is the case.

Women are beautiful and hard working just like the rest of us, I like women

These stats always baffle me. Nowhere I have worked do women get paid less than men for the same job and performance. Maybe it is only in tiny companies where this happens. For 20 years in the workforce, nearly every job is on structured salary, with raises based on performance ratings, or commissions. I seriously would like to know where this pay inequality happens.

Good point... I guess only in places that don't allow unions

Originally posted by timetothink
Right now in america the educational system teaches to the lowest common denominator...meaning the teacher only teaches to the the dumbest kid in the class doing a dis-service to the smarter kids and if all this legislation takes hold for "fair " pay and the other legislation Blain spoke of earlier pay rates will revert to the lowest common denominator......that is what socialism and fairness for all requires....it does not lift all up....it pulls all down to an equal level.

I prefer the America where we all have a chance to fight for ourselves for the American dream than to all be equal in mediocracy.

You speak about the lowest common denominator

and then turn around equating institutionalized lower pay for women, with mediocracy???

Are you trying to give a great example of "lowest common denominator"

Because that a is brilliantly fashioned example of how it works

A move to legislate women's pay would be based on a socialist need to legislate pay equity(otherwise referred to as "economic justice" or in Rev Wright's circle, "economic parity"). This is part of the whole move to the left, socializing the economy as much as possible. While I am for women receiving pay equal to that of men, it should always still be based on the merit of her work and not because govt says so. Same with teachers. Socialism finds so many ways to undermine the ability of the private sector to make responsible business decisions based on their own cognizance and ability to maintain a profitable enterprise, and socialists always use a popular issue to push their agenda. It's always for the "common good", according to their ideals.