What?? You seem confused.

Quote:

---

Who would the less well off people go to, to borrow money if there weren't any bankers?

---

Hello smoothy:

It USED to be that there were TWO kinds of banks... Regular banks and investment banks... There were only a few investment banks and they were on Wall Street. Your bank in your town couldn't gamble away your money on Wall Street.. The law that prevented them from doing so was Glass Stegal. Anyway, a bunch of bought and paid for Republicans repealed that law calling it obsolete, and now ALL the banks can gamble...

So, they DID, and they ARE. They managed to loose several trillion of the middle class's money, they got you and me to bail them out, and they're at it again...

Occupy a BANK!!

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

It USED to be that there were TWO kinds of banks... Regular banks and investment banks... There were only a few investment banks and they were on Wall Street. Your bank in your town couldn't gamble away your money on Wall Street.. The law that prevented them from doing so was Glass Stegal. Anyway, a bunch of bought and paid for Republicans repealed that law calling it obsolete, and now ALL the banks can gamble...

So, they DID, and they ARE. They managed to loose several trillion of the middle class's money, they got you and me to bail them out, and they're at it again...

Occupy a BANK!!!!!

excon

---

Then why were the finaciall institutions giving so much money to the Democrats if they are run by republicans?

Hello again, smoothy:

Quote:

---

Then why were the finaciall institutions giving so much money to the Democrats if they are run by republicans?

---

Pay attention, smoothy:

The banks own ALL of us. Every politician in the land.

OCCUPY A BANK!!

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:Pay attention, smoothy:

The banks own ALL of us. Every politician in the land.

OCCUPY A BANK!!!

excon

---

They don't own me.

I'm not foolish enough to run up 50 or 60K dollars or more of credit card debt like far too many people are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Math is hard, even with a PhD in economics...



I've always suspected liberal economists used a vastly different form of math than most people and this confirms it. If North Carolina is the 39th richest state then only 11 are poorer, and if it's 12th in percentage of children in poverty then 11 are poorer - the proportion is the same. Somehow she has deduced that GOP dominated North Carolina ranks high in both wealth and children in poverty when that's clearly not so.

Of course there are far wealthier states which fare worse then NC in children living in poverty but they aren't dominated by Republicans.

So to the question her colleague asked, "How can it be legal to have so much poverty in such a wealthy state?"

I don't know, maybe you should ask the folks in D.C., one of the wealthiest areas with one of the worst poverty rates. Meanwhile should we make poverty illegal or something?

---

The math says they got wealthy and the people that worked for them got poor. Prices went up, wages did not. Laying off millions and moving overseas for cheap labor is great for a corporate bottom line, but lousy for those laid off, and highly disruptive for families.

That's not liberal, or conservative. Just the math, and the facts. Just ask the guy who worked for twenty years and got terminated or laid off. His gains for the last 20 years, and the house he had for 13, is wiped out.

Funny though how all this offshore outsourcing didn't get hard and heavy until Clinton came into office.

Yeah I know this because I made a lot of money in overtime doing it for some of these companies, DURING the Clinton Administration..

Hello again, smoothy:

Quote:

---

They don't own me.

I'm not foolish enough to run up 50 or 60K dollars or more of credit card debt like far too many people are.

---

Pay attention.. They own your GOVERNMENT. They own your POLITICIANS... They OWN your country.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The math says they got wealthy and the people that worked for them got poor. Prices went up, wages did not. Laying off millions and moving overseas for cheap labor is great for a corporate bottom line, but lousy for those laid off, and highly disruptive for families.

That's not liberal, or conservative. Just the math, and the facts. Just ask the guy who worked for twenty years and got terminated or laid off. His gains for the last 20 years, and the house he had for 13, is wiped out.

---

It went right over your head didn't it? If the lady was concerned about (or could do math) poverty in "such a wealthy state" she would have picked a wealthy state, not North Carolina.

It was clearly a partisan slam at NC from the opening mention of visiting with "state treasurer, Janet Cowell – the only Democrat in the administration now", segueing to the convoluted math of the 39th richest state having so many poor people. I mean duh, if you're near the bottom in wealth you're probably not going to rank at the top in fewest children in poverty... though they fare better than other wealthier and much more liberal areas like New York, New Jersey and D.C. That was partisan, liberal math and she probably believes it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:
Pay attention.. They own your GOVERNMENT. They own your POLITICIANS... They OWN your country.

excon

---

Naw... that sounds like paranoia to me.

I'm more worried about the idiot in the WHite house than I am the Bankers.

The Bankers want me and everyone to make money... its good for me and its good for them... the clown in the Oval office says I got mine... I'll make sure nobody else gets a chance to get theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Math is hard, even with a PhD in economics...



I've always suspected liberal economists used a vastly different form of math than most people and this confirms it. If North Carolina is the 39th richest state then only 11 are poorer, and if it's 12th in percentage of children in poverty then 11 are poorer - the proportion is the same. Somehow she has deduced that GOP dominated North Carolina ranks high in both wealth and children in poverty when that's clearly not so.

Of course there are far wealthier states which fare worse then NC in children living in poverty but they aren't dominated by Republicans.

So to the question her colleague asked, "How can it be legal to have so much poverty in such a wealthy state?"

I don't know, maybe you should ask the folks in D.C., one of the wealthiest areas with one of the worst poverty rates. Meanwhile should we make poverty illegal or something?

---

Teresa Ghilarducci is the author of the rationale behind the eventual government seizing of 401-K plans

Her math may make more sense if you calculate in the 57 states . She must be shocked to learn that 20% of the population is still in the lowest quintile.
You know what 'New School' is ? It's where failed Notre Dame professors continue their career .

Quote:

---

bunch of bought and paid for Republicans repealed that law calling it obsolete, and now ALL the banks can gamble...

---

You mean like Bill Clintoon ? For the record... Graham Leach Bliley passed in the Senate 90-8 with 37 Dems voting for it . It was signed by Dem Pres Bill Clintoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Teresa Ghilarducci is the author of the rationale behind the eventual government seizing of 401-K plans

Her math may make more sense if you calculate in the 57 states .

---

Whatever it takes.

Quote:

---

You know what 'New School' is ? It's where failed Notre Dame professors continue their career .

---

How many Berkeley PhD's does New School boast I wonder.

Speaking of school, Kalifornia is actually bucking Obama on something...

Quote:

---

California holds out against Obama's education vision
The state has made a rare break with the administration, refusing to follow its lead on evaluating teachers, in a standoff that reflects a union's lasting influence.

WASHINGTON — California is almost always there to boost President Obama's policy agenda as he fights fierce headwinds in Congress, working with the executive branch to carry out the administration's vision on healthcare, renewable energy and clean air.

But when the topic shifts to overhauling education, the state has become one of the administration's biggest headaches.

California has defiantly refused to follow the administration's lead in grading the performance of teachers and using those measurements to reward the best teachers and punish the worst. The state is one of very few that have told Washington that under no conditions will it put in place the type of teacher evaluation system Obama has championed.

---

But it's for the children I'm sure.

Quote:

---

The standoff reflects the enduring influence of the California Teachers Assn. which long ago established the state as a bulwark against the national movement to base teacher evaluations more heavily on standardized tests. The CTA, the most generous campaign donor to state officials, maintains a tight grip on Sacramento politics.

The union's position has been embraced by Gov. Jerry Brown and State Supt. Of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, two old-guard Democrats who are loath to antagonize labor. Their aides speak about the president's teacher accountability plans with language a Texas official might use to describe Obama's healthcare plan: intrusion on local control, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, costly, unwarranted federal mandate.

---

How can anyone put the union ahead of the children and keep bad teachers at all cost?

Democrat San Diego mayor Bob Filner was recently accused of sexual harassment against "numerous" women ("Numerous" Women Harassed by San Diego Mayor Filner: Former Friends, Allies).

This week? He "has agreed to be the keynote speaker at a benefit for sexual assault victims." No, seriously.

At least they stripped him of the award they were going to bestow upon him.

Why don't I find this shocking? OH... its because a sitting president and the Attourney General are both calling for lynching an innocent man... in this day and age... and almost everyone on the left thinks it's a good idea.

And how exactly is that any different than a bunch of white guys 60 or more years ago calling for lynching a black man that was just found innocent of killing a white woman.

Only a loony ties the bad conduct of a mayor to the practice of lynching black people in the good old days to the present administration and a fool who got a bloody nose and killed the guy who did it.

Put your hood back on if you want to rant.

Thank goodness republican politicians never do anything morally incorrect.

Of course they do, but the reaction is totally different. The left celebrates their perverts.

Just like the right.