The new party of no?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think the "Wall Street" types have put themselves into the public enemy number one position all by themselves

You bet the Dems are using "class warfare". About time they grew a pair. If there is a tax cut for only 2% of the population, only for income levels over $250K (the first $250K getting a tax cut), that will cost $700 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, of course the Dems want the GOP name on it - not Obama's.

Did you see a few weeks ago, where Gates and Buffett publicly came out and advised Obama to let that one tax cut expire for the wealthy?

Yes because Wall Street has been terrible for the average American.

About time they used class warfare? LOL! yeah the party of the people versus the party of the rich hasnt been used before...
All class warfare has resulted in is further entitlement from those which least deserve entitlements.

I dont really care what those guys publicaly said. 2 mega rich old guy Democrats who are suffering from guilty consciences. Think they got rich giving money away and asking to be taxed at a higher rate? Find me a 40 year old non-liberal billionaire that agrees.

[Riot]

Yes because Wall Street has been terrible for the average American.

Yes. Losing 35-40% of one's investments had quite the negative effect on Wall Street's reputation with "the average American". Thank goodness Social Security didn't get privatized by Bush The Second - it would have been a blood bath.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

LOL...We're all grown here. Nobody is gunna change their mind about whether those making over 250k should have their tax cut extended. I just don't see how this guy negotiating on this is gunna help him get elected again. Not many of the people who want the tax cut extended for the rich will vote for this guy. So, if he gives them some sort of extention on their tax break, wtf good does it do him? Maybe this guy doesn't really want to get elected again. If he gives the rich an extension of their tax break, do you know how many people are gunna stay home when he needs them to vote for him? He better start exposing the parts of them that people don't like, and stop doing this nice crap that hasn't worked for almost 2 years.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes. Losing 35-40% of one's investments had quite the negative effect on Wall Street's reputation with "the average American". Thank goodness Social Security didn't get privatized by Bush The Second - it would have been a blood bath.

I often think of this and also the 24/7 trading they were touting during the DotCom bubble. Only people this would have benefited is the Hedge Funds who trade both sides and the Uber rich that can get in them providing it wasn't run by Madoff. Mom and Pop and their buy and hold mutual funds would be absolutely destroyed...

[Riot]

I'm fed up with these arrogant GOP losers endangering our national security just to score political points against Obama by saying "no" to everything. They've done nothing for two years.

If Jon Kyl (R Senator Arizona) continues to obstruct the START Treaty renewal just because he wants to throw a hissy fit and try and screw Obama - the exact same treaty the GOP and Reagan approved in the past, the same treaty the GOP was raving about Bush's last year in office, the same treaty plenty of other GOP say is necessary and essential to our nuclear security - WITH added funding that Kyle threw a temper tantrum and demanded and was added by Obama in a conciliatory move, then Kyl backed out again voting to approve it - un-effing- believable bunch of irresponsible babies, putting politics before this country. Can Senators be recalled?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm fed up with these arrogant GOP losers endangering our national security just to score political points against Obama by saying "no" to everything. They've done nothing for two years.

If Jon Kyl (R Senator Arizona) continues to obstruct the START Treaty renewal just because he wants to throw a hissy fit and try and screw Obama - the exact same treaty the GOP and Reagan approved in the past, the same treaty the GOP was raving about Bush's last year in office, the same treaty plenty of other GOP say is necessary and essential to our nuclear security - WITH added funding that Kyle threw a temper tantrum and demanded and was added by Obama in a conciliatory move, then Kyl backed out again voting to approve it - un-effing- believable bunch of irresponsible babies, putting politics before this country. Can Senators be recalled?

Yeah we are in imminent danger. I'm really scared. China and India and Russia may decide to launch a first strike against us now...

I find it facinating that the original link and my question about it continues to be ignored by the Democrats here.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yeah we are in imminent danger.

You should be scared when the GOP has been blocking normal business for our country for two years, just to try and damage Obama, so they can try and win back the Presidency in 2012.

Routine government business and funding, blocked, treaties in effect since Reagan (hell a treaty Reagan and the GOP created and supported!) blocked .... it's a miracle that Pelosi-Reid-Obama got accomplished as much as they did, considering they needed to overcome the excessive filibuster vote requirement, not the Constitutional majority vote requirement in the Senate, virtually every time something was passed.

BTW, this is a pretty funny website (just insert the f word in the URL if it won't click through): http://www.whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You should be scared when the GOP has been blocking normal business for our country for two years, just to try and damage Obama, so they can try and win back the Presidency in 2012.

Routine government business and funding, blocked, treaties in effect since Reagan (hell a treaty Reagan and the GOP created and supported!) blocked .... it's a miracle that Pelosi-Reid-Obama got accomplished as much as they did, considering they needed to overcome the excessive filibuster vote requirement, not the Constitutional majority vote requirement in the Senate, virtually every time something was passed.

BTW, this is a pretty funny website (just insert the f word in the URL if it won't click through): http://www.whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

Yes because the GOP is evil and the Democrats are all faithful public servants that always have the common good at heart...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

I often think of this and also the 24/7 trading they were touting during the DotCom bubble. Only people this would have benefited is the Hedge Funds who trade both sides and the Uber rich that can get in them providing it wasn't run by Madoff. Mom and Pop and their buy and hold mutual funds would be absolutely destroyed...

LOL. So what you are saying is that the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds didnt benefit from the dot.com bubble?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

LOL. So what you are saying is that the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds didnt benefit from the dot.com bubble?

LOL... I think you have a selective reading disorder.. No that is not what I am saying at all. Go back and read with a mind not already made up that I am an enemy Dem.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

LOL... I think you have a selective reading disorder.. No that is not what I am saying at all. Go back and read with a mind not already made up that I am an enemy Dem.

I think you have basic english sentence disorder. Did you not see the question mark at the end of the sentence? You responded to a post in which Riot bemoaned the loss of 30-40% of the "average american's" investments. You wrote "I agree and.."

So I asked you a question and since you brought up the dotcom bubble referenced both mutual funds AND the dotcom bubble. If you and Riot would ever actually bother to answer questions instead of promoting my supposed narrowminded political biases.

[jms62]

"So what you are saying is that the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds didnt benefit from the dot.com bubble?"

Odd way to phrase a question no? I may not have been an English major but that sure seems like a paraphrase to me...

To answer your question, Mutual funds prospered as they racked in their fees as did the hedge funds who trade both ways. How did Mom and Pop do if they did what mom and pop always do and entered the game in 1999.. Not so much...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you and Riot would ever actually bother to answer questions instead of promoting my supposed narrowminded political biases.

You might stick to the actual discussion instead of insisting on only debating with your straw man friends.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes. Losing 35-40% of one's investments had quite the negative effect on Wall Street's reputation with "the average American". Thank goodness Social Security didn't get privatized by Bush The Second - it would have been a blood bath.

So the trillions made by the average americans over the last 30 years not only by individual investments and retirement funds but by institutional investments such as pension funds is negated by losses? I guess you forgot that there is risk involved and no one was complaining when their nest eggs went up 500% during the boom times...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the trillions made by the average americans over the last 30 years not only by individual investments and retirement funds but by institutional investments such as pension funds is negated by losses? I guess you forgot that there is risk involved and no one was complaining when their nest eggs went up 500% during the boom times...

You missed the entire point. Or are simply avoiding it purposely with a straw man regarding the investment world, which is not the topic.

Currently Social Security funds are not in "risk involved" investments. To privatize social security would put them there. The private sector lost nearly half their investments when Wall Street crashed. Thank goodness that wasn't their Social Security funds, privatized by Bush.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You missed the entire point. Or are simply avoiding it purposely with a straw man regarding the investment world, which is not the topic.

Currently Social Security funds are not in "risk involved" investments. To privatize social security would put them there. The private sector lost nearly half their investments when Wall Street crashed. Thank goodness that wasn't their Social Security funds, privatized by Bush.

I started a thread to ask a few simple questions about the views of the boards participants (democrats in particular) on the strategy employed now by the Democrats and whether you are comfortable with party leadership which now considers Obama to be center-right?

I have not even seen one attempt to answer those questions.

I asked JMS if he thought that mutual funds (and in turn those who are invested in them) benefitted from the dotcom bubble.

He failed to answer and wants to move the conversation to the fees chargedd by funds.

But I am the person who is avoiding topics or creating "strawmen"?

So it is ok to make a blanket statement that Wall Street cost the average investor 30-40% but I have to break financial sectors down?

And who talked about SS finds other than you?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I started a thread to ask a few simple questions about the views of the boards participants (democrats in particular) on the strategy employed now by the Democrats and whether you are comfortable with party leadership which now considers Obama to be center-right?

I have not even seen one attempt to answer those questions.

I asked JMS if he thought that mutual funds (and in turn those who are invested in them) benefitted from the dotcom bubble.

He failed to answer and wants to move the conversation to the fees chargedd by funds.

But I am the person who is avoiding topics or creating "strawmen"?

So it is ok to make a blanket statement that Wall Street cost the average investor 30-40% but I have to break financial sectors down?

And who talked about SS finds other than you?

When in doubt, just start flingin' random contentions out!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

When in doubt, just start flingin' random contentions out!

Perhaps someone could explain what is so random about what i asked? Why are you so afraid to answer the questions? They arent that tricky.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont really care what those guys publicaly said. 2 mega rich old guy Democrats who are suffering from guilty consciences. Think they got rich giving money away and asking to be taxed at a higher rate? Find me a 40 year old non-liberal billionaire that agrees.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/...line-on-taxes/