The LIE....

[yager024]

STILL GOT YOUR WHITE SHEET AND CROSS BURNING MATERIAL MUTER FUKER??? YOU RACIST PIG SH!T. GET OFF MY PLANET. IF I COULD CONTACT A FEW BLACKS IN THE ORLANDO AREA. I WOULD LET THEM READ YOU SH!T. THEY WOULD FINE YOU FACE DOWN WITH YOUR BALLS IN YOUR MOUTH.
SEE HOW BIG A WARRIOR YOU ARE.
Rand Paul claimed to be a board certified Eye DR also. Where the fuk is you rage. Where is your rage about all the republicans with false militarty history??? DIE PIG ****


Are you talking in ebonics or do you just have poor grammar? :confused:

[wtdoor67]

Swimp is really on to something here. Next thing you know Obama will claim he was a JLineman. Kinda like someone else on here.

He was probably talking about his Mother's father. Heavenly day.

Dat Swimpy got a mind like a steel trap. HA, HA, HA.

I think I'll go "float" a Wye/Wye. Gonna put some hard drawn 6 on my belt for nuts and washers. Jist a little tip, you know. HA, HA, HA, HA.

[topgroove]

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/09/the_bailout_and_the_elite.cfm), the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:


The Federal Reserve (http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf), which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.


Home buyers (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824), who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.


Congress (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051009sp.pdf), which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.


Real estate agents (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824), most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.


The Clinton administration (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-rejects-blame-for-financial-crisis-2008-09-25.html), which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.


Mortgage brokers (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/econtrouble_08-20.html), who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.


Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040223/), who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.


Wall Street firms (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/econtrouble_08-20.html), who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.


The Bush administration (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/20/business/prexy.php), which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.


An obscure accounting rule (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/mark_to_market.html) called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.


Collective delusion (http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf), or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

[koca]

Layered irresponsibility? Maybe. It doesn't really matter at this piont how it happened, what's important is what's going to correct it. I can't see a tax increase doing anything to aid the economic recovery. It's all about the money though the feds want it so they'll get if it's good for the economy or not.

[electriklady]

I guess it doesnt count if we answered the EFCA question in another thread, so I copied and pasted my response from "for the good of unions" thread, over here in the lie thread?

IE....IT GIVES THE CHOICE OF THE SECRET BALLOT TO THE EMPLOYEES, NOT THE EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!WHERE IT SHOULD BE! IF THE EMPLOYEES CHOOSE THE SECRET BALLOT, THEN THE VOTE IS BY SECRET BALLOT!!!!!!!

Is that answer plain enough? It can't be stated any clearer. and it "is all GOOD"......just fine and dandy with me!!!!!!!! What was that old saying I used to hear when I was young?


POWER TO THE PEOPLE:D:D:D:D





For the dozenth time........


As The Christian Science Monitor has noted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F11%2F0 9%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F09labor.html%3Ffta%3Dyhttp%3A% 2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Frd%3Fto%3Dhttp%253A%252F%2 52Ffeatures.csmonitor.com%252Fpolitics%252F2009%25 2F03%252F11%252Fcontroversial-card-check-bill-back-for-fourth-time%252F), "The proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot." Indeed, as The New York Times reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F11%2F0 9%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F09labor.html%3F_r%3D3%26oref%3 Dslogin%26pagewanted%3Dall), "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Employee Free Choice Act supporters say employers (http://mediamatters.org/items/200812230011) often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor and a leading proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act, has addressed (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Flist%2Fpress%2F or01_wu%2Fpr03012007freechoice.html) the "myth" that the bill eliminates the secret ballot:
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.


I dont have a problem with it at all! It should be our choice not the employers! When you are union you are used to abiding by what the majority want......and I cant see a lot of brothers and sisters negating the secret ballot unless they feel the company is going to intimidate the employees and start their massive anti union campaigns bringing in the tough guy union busters. I know......you dont believe companies do that...........jackasses have wings and can fly too.....Who the hell do you think spread all the misinfo that EFCA takes away your right to a secret ballot