When do those of us that are more worried about large federal agencies than we are large businesses going to get a champion?

Posted by nmg_no

you shittin' me dude?

federal agency = champion
corporate naziism = champion
nanny state = champion

There is no difference. What we really need is a government and a corporate that actually have to follow the law. The law of the US, not the law of Jesus or Moses or Allah.

And Obama is right about people being stupid. Evidence to that is the fact that they think another gov't agency to look over us is a good ideal.

"people are too stupid to deal with financials"

This is wrong how?

We're in this mess largely because people bought things they could in no way afford and got kicked in the ass when the bill came due. I have no sympathy for them and yes, they were (are) fucking stupid.

"OK, not his exact words"

Although, of course, it's not beneath you to indicate at the outset that those were, in fact, his exact words:

Obama: "people are too stupid to deal with financials"
Posted by nmg_no | Flag: Useless, Prevaricating Sack of Shit

And Obama is right about people being stupid. Evidence to that is the fact that they think another gov't agency to look over us is a good ideal.

#1 | POSTED BY LIPZOIDIAL

Not only is the majority of the US populace stupid, they are intellectually lazy.

Nice job, Start With a Lie!!!

Then say it isn't but it is....

Flag-This thread has activated my bull shit detector

The geniuses posting their anti-Obama spam here don't really even understand the terms of their own mortgages and credit cards though they will claim they do. It is a fact that most Americans have been duped with fine print and it is about fucking time the government stepped in to regulate these crooks.
In my opinion, the right who created this whole economic catastrophe should STFU!
BTW, just so you know, in my personal life I have begun conveying that message to a few and surprisingly they were taken aback and have STFU.
I tell them,
"you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and do not have a point of view, you only have the ability to repeat what the right wing pundits tell you and I am not willing to listen to you demonstrate how stupid you are."
It seems to do the trick.

Like you do danni.

Go back to drinking your bong water.

NMG NO: "I'm too stupid to make a thread that isn't misleading"

OK, not his exact words...

CHICKENRANCHER "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and do not have a point of view, you only have the ability to repeat what the right wing pundits tell you and I am not willing to listen to you demonstrate how stupid you are."

"When do those of us that are more worried about large federal agencies than we are large businesses going to get a champion?"

Step up to the plate, bonehead. You sound like just the guy fer the job.

"you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and do not have a point of view, you only have the ability to repeat what the right wing pundits tell you and I am not willing to listen to you demonstrate how stupid you are."
It seems to do the trick." #6 | Posted by danni

OMG, Danni the pot calling the kettle black.

Typical.

Last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly job report showing that the economy lost 345,000 jobs in May. This brings the total number of jobs lost in the first full three months since the economic stimulus package was passed to 1.5 million jobs. Countering these inconvenient truths, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden unveiled a new "accelerated" "roadmap to recovery", which the AP dryly notes "is neither new nor accelerated." Officially, the Obama administration claims their stimulus plan has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs, but even that number is fuzzy: This Sunday on CNN, Obama adviser David Axelrod claimed the stimulus "has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs."

Even Democrats are beginning to question the integrity of the Obama administration's economic claims. Grilling Obama's Treasury Secretary, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) said:

You created a situation where you cannot be wrong. If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct.

Baucus is right. Continuing to play the Obama administration's "saved or created" jobs game is a fool's errand. They will always just re-tweak their formulas to come up with fake numbers to justify their policies. So can Americans find an objective metric to cut through the mendacity of the Obama administration's "saved or created" jobs mantra? Yes we can. By matching the Obama administration's past promises to past BLS data, a clear jobs baseline emerges. When the Obama administration first unveiled the stimulus plan in November they claimed it would create 2.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. At the time BLS reported that U.S. economy employed about 136.1 million jobs. But by January that number fell to 134.6 million jobs. Not so coincidentally, the Obama administration upped the job-creating magic of the stimulus to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010.

Is there a commonality between these two sets of numbers? There sure is: 136.1 million plus 2.5 million equals 138.6 million; and 134.6 million plus 4 million equals 138.6 million. Voila: the objective, Obama administration created, BLS data verifiable, jobs accountability number is 138.6 million.

Apparently so is the administration.

Its an interesting spin on the complexity of financial debt instruments.

While I agree with Obama that the level of sophistication needed to fully comprehend some debt instruments are beyond the understanding of the average individual. Not because they are stupid, but because its not thier field of expertise, and its complexity has increased.

I don't believe the institutions need to "dumb" it down for everyone, they aren't cheating us. They are making debt instruments available to us, the more sophisticated investor we are, the less it appears like cheating.

The SEC has Rule 501 of Regulation D, which outlines the terms for being an accredited investor. This allows one the privilege of investing in securities, the typical individual cannot. The idea behind it is that if someone has achieved that level of worth, they must know something about risk, or at least enough to avoid what can't be understood.

Perhaps, reaching a certain level of "wealth" and it opens the doors to more complicated instruments, and hence risk, and hence more return.

I propose a more thorough classification system for debt instruments and investors.

Am I saying the poor can't own homes, sure they could, but the instrument they use to aquire the debt, would be simpler to understand, thus less risky.

MSGT: The Government has proven to be too stupid to deal with financials.

Hence Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed has 232? co-sponsors now I believe.

what's stupid about that?

The problem with the financial institution isn't just that people are stupid, but that lawyers get elected and make rules that only lawyers can interpret (often with the final arbitration of other lawyers that have been promoted and now get to wear little black dresses).

Then they put this legal print on documents, written in language that passes legal muster, so no one understands it.

If things were written in language that people understand, and if schools spent more time teaching children than babysitting them and worrying about how they feel about themselves, this wouldn't be the case.

Create a new organization, staffed by, let me guess, lawyers, to determine that the fine print is correct and that the companies are all following the rules (even when they conflict)...

Yup, gov't at its finest.

"Hence Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed has 232? co-sponsors now I believe."

Brilliant plan if you want your dollars to become worthless. Initially I thought it sounded like a good idea, on further contemplation it occurred to me that an audit would provide Russia and China with the evidence they need to replace the dollar as the currency the world trades in. Like many things, simplistic ideas are usually not good policy. Reality is far more complicated than Ron Paul would like to believe. Audit the FED, start an immediate depression we would likely not recover from for decades. Fortunately the Senate will probably kill this idea and the President would veto it anyway.