Woman Convicted of Drug Fraud Is Used As Exemple To Extend Unemployment Benefits

[red states rule]

You can't make this stuff up. This shows how incompetent Obama really is. Obama uses a convicted criminal as a prop for an extension of unemployment benefits?





July 28, 2010

(CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA) -- Charlottesville resident Leslie Macko was once employed at ACAC in the Albemarle Square Shopping Center. In April 2009, she lost her job as an aesthetician in the spa at ACAC.

President Barack Obama called on Congress last week to extend unemployment insurance. Macko stood next to the President of the United States as his example of the need to extend jobless benefits.

CBS19's Jessica Jaglois has learned that Macko was found guilty of prescription drug fraud in March 2009, one month before Macko lost her job at ACAC. She served a one year probationary sentence.

Macko joined two other unemployed people and President Obama at the podium for a speech designed to encourage lawmakers to extend jobless benefits.

"We need to extend unemployment compensation benefits for women like Leslie Macko, who lost her job at a fitness center last year, and has been looking for work ever since. Because she's eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she's doing what she never thought she'd have to do. Not at this point, anyway. She's turning to her father for financial support," Obama said in his speech.

ACAC owner Phil Wendel was unable to tell CBS19 if Macko was terminated because of the conviction. There's also no indication from the court file that Macko lost her job because of the court case, or that she has received unemployment benefits improperly.

CBS19 contacted Leslie Macko about the conviction, and she declined to comment until she speaks with her attorney. We have also reached out to the White House to see if they know the full story behind the woman they chose to stand next to President Obama, but have not received comment from them either.

http://www.newsplex.com/video?clipID=4984783&autoStart=true&contentID=99497354

[Gaffer]

The criminals are in charge. A small time hoodlum standing next to a big time hoodlum.

[Palin Rider]

Fail. If Macko is receiving unemployment benefits legitimately, then she's paid her debt to society for past crimes and has as much right to unemployment as anyone else who was fired or laid off.

Of all the things the Obama admin can be attacked for, this has got to be one of the lamest.

[Gaffer]

Fail. If Macko is receiving unemployment benefits legitimately, then she's paid her debt to society for past crimes and has as much right to unemployment as anyone else who was fired or laid off.

Of all the things the Obama admin can be attacked for, this has got to be one of the lamest.

She's still on probation. So she hasn't paid her debt yet. She's not finding work because employers won't hire convicted felons very often, especially if they are still serving their sentence. In the time she has been on unemployment she could have any number of jobs. They probably wouldn't pay well, but they would be work. Unemployment extensions just means people sit on their ass longer.

[darin]

It's not the public's responsibility to ensure livelihood of every citizen who demands to be cared for. I wish we had a man in the whitehouse.

[Palin Rider]

She's still on probation. So she hasn't paid her debt yet.Not according to the article. It says in the original quote: "She served [past tense] a one year probationary sentence."


In the time she has been on unemployment she could have any number of jobs. They probably wouldn't pay well, but they would be work. Unemployment extensions just means people sit on their ass longer.You don't seem to know just how little Unemployment Insurance pays. Any full-time job, even at minimum wage, is going to pay considerably more than UI. The system was designed that way, and rightly so. As a result, there's plenty of motivation for the unemployed to get jobs. UI might keep you from getting foreclosed on or evicted, but that's it.

Over the past 10 years, I've met dozens, if not hundreds of unemployed people. (Most of them were educated professionals, granted.) I never met one who would have preferred living only on a UI check in order just to sit on their ass. From the viewpoint of an unemployed person, it would make absolutely no economic sense.

[Palin Rider]

It's not the public's responsibility to ensure livelihood of every citizen who demands to be cared for.Nobody here said it was. Nor is that the purpose of unemployment insurance.


I wish we had a man in the whitehouse.Nobody gets what they wish for in this life. :boohoo:
Your man lost. Time to move on, and don't forget to vote in 2012. :salute:

[namvet]

Fail. If Macko is receiving unemployment benefits legitimately, then she's paid her debt to society for past crimes and has as much right to unemployment as anyone else who was fired or laid off.

Of all the things the Obama admin can be attacked for, this has got to be one of the lamest.


http://smileyicons.net/smilies/529.gif

[Trigg]

Fail. If Macko is receiving unemployment benefits legitimately, then she's paid her debt to society for past crimes and has as much right to unemployment as anyone else who was fired or laid off.

Of all the things the Obama admin can be attacked for, this has got to be one of the lamest.

do you actually believe that the obama administration knew she was a criminal? Once again, I doubt they did their homework before parading her before the cameras.

[namvet]

his staff should have known. so much for research. but, they are libtards. who's next charles manson ????:laugh2:

[Gaffer]

He just seems to attract them like flies.

[namvet]

He just seems to attract them like flies.

same with the voters. they rolled the dice and it came up snake eyes

[Sweetchuck]

It's not the public's responsibility to ensure livelihood of every citizen who demands to be cared for. I wish we had a man in the whitehouse.

Hillary?

:laugh2:

[Palin Rider]

do you actually believe that the obama administration knew she was a criminal? Once again, I doubt they did their homework before parading her before the cameras.

No, they probably did screw the pooch on that one. They're not the first admin that's made mistakes of that caliber, and they won't be the last.

[Nukeman]

No, they probably did screw the pooch on that one. They're not the first admin that's made mistakes of that caliber, and they won't be the last.

But they continue to do this same thing over and over. Just look at who this "president" surrounds himself with. They are all borderline criminal if not all the way on the other side.........

Actually she is a step up from his advisors. After all it not like SHE killed anyone (cough*** Ayers**** cough).....

[Palin Rider]

But they continue to do this same thing over and over. Just look at who this "president" surrounds himself with. They are all borderline criminal if not all the way on the other side.........

Actually she is a step up from his advisors. After all it not like SHE killed anyone (cough*** Ayers**** cough).....

First, how did you manage to get from "stupidity and sloppy research" to "criminality?" :confused:

Second, even in Washington, most stupid people, Republican or Democrat, are honest. If anything, that makes them even more dangerous.

Third, every administration, Democratic and otherwise, has always had and always will have a handful of unethical, unscrupulous sonsofbitches on their staffs. (If you believe that's unique to Obama or the Dems, then you're a partisan fool.) Such people always want to attach themselves to power, and many of them are very good at making sure that what the boss wants done...gets done. It's unfortunate, but trying to impeach them one by one would take far more time, effort, and taxpayer money than it would usually be worth.

[namvet]

First, how did you manage to get from "stupidity and sloppy research" to "criminality?" :confused:

Second, even in Washington, most stupid people, Republican or Democrat, are honest. If anything, that makes them even more dangerous.

Third, every administration, Democratic and otherwise, has always had and always will have a handful of unethical, unscrupulous sonsofbitches on their staffs. (If you believe that's unique to Obama or the Dems, then you're a partisan fool.) Such people always want to attach themselves to power, and many of them are very good at making sure that what the boss wants done...gets done. It's unfortunate, but trying to impeach them one by one would take far more time, effort, and taxpayer money than it would usually be worth.

first DC stinks like a whorehouse at low tide. always has always will. anyone that goes there is instantly corrupt.

second the Osama regime has excelled in stupidity beyond our wildest night mares. the new axis of evil

[red states rule]

Hey she could get a job in the administration working on implementing Obamacare


http://faceswaps.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/194904barack-make-it-rain.gif

[Nukeman]

First, how did you manage to get from "stupidity and sloppy research" to "criminality?" :confused:

Second, even in Washington, most stupid people, Republican or Democrat, are honest. If anything, that makes them even more dangerous.

Third, every administration, Democratic and otherwise, has always had and always will have a handful of unethical, unscrupulous sonsofbitches on their staffs. (If you believe that's unique to Obama or the Dems, then you're a partisan fool.) Such people always want to attach themselves to power, and many of them are very good at making sure that what the boss wants done...gets done. It's unfortunate, but trying to impeach them one by one would take far more time, effort, and taxpayer money than it would usually be worth.

REALY?????????? Do you honestly believe the current administration is above board on EVERYTHING they do. So far from what I have seen this admin has done everything in its power to cover up/hide/distract/manipulate/ and flat out lie to the American people.

Your right in the fact that these people want to attach themselves to someone in power that is why they picked a "clean slate" in Obama. He was the only one that wasn't covered in dirt...

He sure as hell has surrounded himself with some of the most filthy people in the world. So why wouldn't his people go looking for a "poor woman out of work" in the sewers and other places they seem to frequent!!!!????

[Palin Rider]

REALY?????????? Do you honestly believe the current administration is above board on EVERYTHING they do.Of course not. No more than any other administration has been, and probably no less.


So far from what I have seen this admin has done everything in its power to cover up/hide/distract/manipulate/ and flat out lie to the American people.I think it would prefer to tell the truth, when the truth isn't too damaging.

It's easier than trying to keep track of what you lied about and to whom.

[red states rule]

We have several administration members who "forgot" to pay their taxes - then paid them when exposed

Timothy Geithner (Sec of the Treasury for one) who had the gall to try and write off his son's summer camp

Now we have this woman convicted of prescription drug fraud standing next to Obama - being used as a prop to push for another extension of unemployment benefits.

Seems logical with this bunch running DC

[Palin Rider]

If all the people can manage to do is attack the guys in power, the next guys in power will be an even bigger disappointment.

[red states rule]

If all the people can manage to do is attack the guys in power, the next guys in power will be an even bigger disappointment.

How so? Obama and the Dems ran against Pres Bushs' excessive spending, deficits, wars, and Republican corruption

We all can see how Obama and the Dems have taken all four issues to new levels and are easily outdoing Pres Bush and Republicans

The polls also reflect the same sentiment

[Palin Rider]

How so? Obama and the Dems ran against Pres Bushs' excessive spending, deficits, wars, and Republican corruption

We all can see how Obama and the Dems have taken all four issues to new levels and are easily outdoing Pres Bush and Republicans

The polls also reflect the same sentiment

"How so?" Simple. Playing attack dog doesn't solve anything. You just end up rolling in the dirt with some attack dog from the other camp.

In a representative government, the voters need to think about not just what they want done, but how the government should do it. Then they need to communicate those plans directly to their representatives. If they don't, the only people left to influence the government will be the ones with the most money.

[red states rule]

"How so?" Simple. Playing attack dog doesn't solve anything. You just end up rolling in the dirt with some attack dog from the other camp.

In a representative government, the voters need to think about not just what they want done, but how the government should do it. Then they need to communicate those plans directly to their representatives. If they don't, the only people left to influence the government will be the ones with the most money.

Which explains why libs have failed once again even when they have total power in DC

Dems are 0bsessed with ramming thru their failed social policies while ignring the economy

Sorry if pointing out those facts gets under your thin liberal skin (much like it does Obama)

[namvet]

If all the people can manage to do is attack the guys in power, the next guys in power will be an even bigger disappointment.

we're at the bottom of the barrel now. no way but up

[Palin Rider]

Which explains why libs have failed once again even when they have total power in DC

Dems are 0bsessed with ramming thru their failed social policies while ignring the economy

Sorry if pointing out those facts gets under your thin liberal skin (much like it does Obama)

The Dems and the Repubs are both obsessed with ramming through failed policies while ignoring what the people care about. And that's the people's own fault. If you believe otherwise, you're a partisan tool.

[red states rule]

The Dems and the Repubs are both obsessed with ramming through failed policies while ignoring what the people care about. And that's the people's own fault. If you believe otherwise, you're a partisan tool.

and you are falling back on the liberal talking pioint being offered these days "Well Republicans did it to"

I will make this easy for you son

I want CONSERVATIVES to win in November. I would love to see a group of conservatives step up and offer the following for people to think about as they go to vote on November 2

1) the repeal of Obamacare

2) the repeal of all remaining stimulus funds

3) the repeal of off shore drilling ban

4) the repeal of financial reform

5) Bush tax cuts made permanent - and MORE across the board tax cuts to get the economy and private sector moving forward

6) as far as spending - in most cases if you can find the same sevice in the Yellow Pages then the government should not be offering the same service. That opens the door for massive cuts in the Federal budget

[Palin Rider]

and you are falling back on the liberal talking pioint being offered these days "Well Republicans did it to"The fact that some people use it as a talking point doesn't mean it's untrue.


I will make this easy for you son

I want CONSERVATIVES to win in November. I would love to see a group of conservatives step up and offer the following for people to think about as they go to vote on November 2

1) the repeal of Obamacare

2) the repeal of all remaining stimulus funds

3) the repeal of off shore drilling ban

4) the repeal of financial reform

5) Bush tax cuts made permanent - and MORE across the board tax cuts to get the economy and private sector moving forward

6) as far as spending - in most cases if you can find the same sevice in the Yellow Pages then the government should not be offering the same service. That opens the door for massive cuts in the Federal budget
You're not describing conservatives; you're describing reactionaries. Not to mention a recipe for 90% poverty rates.

[Kathianne]

The fact that some people use it as a talking point doesn't mean it's untrue.


You're not describing conservatives; you're describing reactionaries. Not to mention a recipe for 90% poverty rates.

Good comeback, now please explain that 90% poverty rate based on what RSR 'wishes' for.

[Palin Rider]

Good comeback, now please explain that 90% poverty rate based on what RSR 'wishes' for.

Item (4) alone could do that. More crooks on Wall Street playing with casino chips - excuse me, "derivatives" - would rob us all blind by cleaning out every bank in the country when their house of cards collapses. (And no stimulus means no more FDIC payments, by the way. Welcome to a new day, with a zero balance in your checking account.)

[Kathianne]

Item (4) alone could do that. More crooks on Wall Street playing with casino chips - excuse me, "derivatives" - would rob us all blind by cleaning out every bank in the country when their house of cards collapses. (And no stimulus means no more FDIC payments, by the way. Welcome to a new day, with a zero balance in your checking account.)

Explain how you arrive at the 90% poverty, considering the financial reform was passed a month or so ago.

[namvet]

note we're not members but his "son". should we call him daddy???

[Palin Rider]

note we're not members but his "son". should we call him daddy???

If so, you should call RSR "grandpa."

[Palin Rider]

Explain how you arrive at the 90% poverty, considering the financial reform was passed a month or so ago.

I thought I already had.

If every American with a checking account suddenly couldn't withdraw on it, most of us would be in poverty, wouldn't we?

[Kathianne]

I thought I already had.

If every American with a checking account suddenly couldn't withdraw on it, most of us would be in poverty, wouldn't we?

And that would have happened when? What are you reading? Seems like Alex Jones, for the left?

[namvet]

If so, you should call RSR "grandpa."

what ever you say.

son

[Palin Rider]

And that would have happened when?
It would eventually happen if Congress were to repeal the recent financial reform legislation.


What are you reading? Seems like Alex Jones, for the left?

Here's a little reading material to get you started:


Critics have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010#Deregulation )

[Kathianne]

It would eventually happen if Congress were to repeal the recent financial reform legislation.



Here's a little reading material to get you started:


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010#Deregulation )

not that wikipedia isn't great and all, but how do you get everyone's checking accts going to 0? 90% poverty? Seriously dude.

[Gaffer]

90% poverty is the ultimate goal of the dark lord. That puts the elites firmly in charge of everything. Also creates a world wide super depression.

[Palin Rider]

not that wikipedia isn't great and all, but how do you get everyone's checking accts going to 0? 90% poverty? Seriously dude.

The only thing that kept everyone's checking accounts going to 0 in 2008 was the FDIC. Without the stimulus, the FDIC would not have been able to keep most of the nation's banks solvent.

Without any FDIC or other government assistance going forward (which appears to be what RSR wants), AND with the same absence of regulation on Wall Street, there would be another bubble-collapse cycle with no FDIC to fall back on.

That's how it all comes together.

Understand, I don't believe that anyone in power is crazy enough to let that happen, but theoretically it could.

[red states rule]

The fact that some people use it as a talking point doesn't mean it's untrue.


You're not describing conservatives; you're describing reactionaries. Not to mention a recipe for 90% poverty rates.

I am telling you what must be done to repair the damage inflicted on the country in the last 17 months

[red states rule]

Item (4) alone could do that. More crooks on Wall Street playing with casino chips - excuse me, "derivatives" - would rob us all blind by cleaning out every bank in the country when their house of cards collapses. (And no stimulus means no more FDIC payments, by the way. Welcome to a new day, with a zero balance in your checking account.)

The bill is another tax bill. It adds $20 Billion in new taxes that wil pased on to us

Also, for some reason, the bill prevents the public from knowing what the SEC does




So much for transparency.

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."

The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/

[Kathianne]

The only thing that kept everyone's checking accounts going to 0 in 2008 was the FDIC. Without the stimulus, the FDIC would not have been able to keep most of the nation's banks solvent.

Without any FDIC or other government assistance going forward (which appears to be what RSR wants), AND with the same absence of regulation on Wall Street, there would be another bubble-collapse cycle with no FDIC to fall back on.

That's how it all comes together.

Understand, I don't believe that anyone in power is crazy enough to let that happen, but theoretically it could.

That was TARP money, not financial reform and accts were never at risk. It's all phony money, whether from TARP, stimulus, FDIC. Financial reform isn't what you think, that legislation may have a name you like, but there is little reform there. In fact, so far the largest change is in the fact that the people will know less than before, especially with SEC<

[Palin Rider]

That was TARP money, not financial reform and accts were never at risk. It's all phony money, whether from TARP, stimulus, FDIC. Financial reform isn't what you think, that legislation may have a name you like, but there is little reform there. In fact, so far the largest change is in the fact that the people will know less than before, especially with SEC<

In that case, what else needs to be done to prevent another 2007-2008-style collapse?

The world is full of white-collar terrorists who have no qualms about making it happen again, and nothing short of laws will stop them.

[Kathianne]

In that case, what else needs to be done to prevent another 2007-2008-style collapse?

The world is full of white-collar terrorists who have no qualms about making it happen again, and nothing short of laws will stop them.

Tell me when you find someone with definitive answer to cause and recovery of the Great Depression. Lots of theories, but no answers.

[Palin Rider]

Tell me when you find someone with definitive answer to cause and recovery of the Great Depression. Lots of theories, but no answers.

Before 1929, not only was there no SEC, but corporations were under no obligation to disclose earnings. If that's not definitive enough, it's a pretty strong clue.

[Kathianne]

Before 1929, not only was there no SEC, but corporations were under no obligation to disclose earnings. If that's not definitive enough, it's a pretty strong clue.

LOL! Not at all. You are now mixing apples, oranges, and hoping for watermelons.

[Palin Rider]

LOL! Not at all. You are now mixing apples, oranges, and hoping for watermelons.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm starting to think that right now you don't either.

Get back to me when you've got something logical. :talk2hand:

[Kathianne]

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm starting to think that right now you don't either.

Get back to me when you've got something logical. :talk2hand:

Ok genius, you implied that SEC was something that helped with the depression, I'm assuming you meant after it was established in the 30's? Or were you implying that it caused the problems that now we need 'reforms' for? If SEC or did you mean 'all programs/departments/commissions' established throughout the 30's are the saving grace ever since or cause of recessions since?

[Palin Rider]

Ok genius, you implied that SEC was something that helped with the depression, I'm assuming you meant after it was established in the 30's?
Yes: the new rules it put in place were influential in helping the market recover. According to most historians, at least.


Or were you implying that it caused the problems that now we need 'reforms' for?If the SEC hadn't been asleep at the switch while investment banks were selling subprime loans as collateral, the latest crash MIGHT have been avoided.


If SEC or did you mean 'all programs/departments/commissions' established throughout the 30's are the saving grace ever since or cause of recessions since?
Not all, obviously. For the record, I'd say that most of them did more good than harm. Which doesn't mean the same would be true today, of course.

Got all that? ;)

[Kathianne]

Yes: the new rules it put in place were influential in helping the market recover. According to most historians, at least.

If the SEC hadn't been asleep at the switch while investment banks were selling subprime loans as collateral, the latest crash MIGHT have been avoided.


Not all, obviously. For the record, I'd say that most of them did more good than harm. Which doesn't mean the same would be true today, of course.

Got all that? ;)

Got it. Don't agree with it, many other qualified people do not either.

[Palin Rider]

Got it. Don't agree with it, many other qualified people do not either.

Then the next logical step is either to prove me wrong or to agree to disagree.

[Kathianne]

Then the next logical step is either to prove me wrong or to agree to disagree.

As I posted in another thread, I don't jump through hoops for you or anyone else. If I chose to add to my argument I'll do so of my own volition.

[Palin Rider]

As I posted in another thread, I don't jump through hoops for you or anyone else. If I chose to add to my argument I'll do so of my own volition.

I only said what the next logical step was, not that you had to take it.

[red states rule]

In that case, what else needs to be done to prevent another 2007-2008-style collapse?

The world is full of white-collar terrorists who have no qualms about making it happen again, and nothing short of laws will stop them.

Easy make sure liberals never want to make home ownership a "right" and not something you have to work for

I noticed you ignored post # 43 BTW

[Palin Rider]

Easy make sure liberals never want to make home ownership a "right" and not something you have to work for

I noticed you ignored post # 43 BTW

Make up your mind, then. Is this a thread about unemployment or about financial reform?

Hijacking your own thread is sort of the equivalent of robbing your own house.

[red states rule]

Make up your mind, then. Is this a thread about unemployment or about financial reform?

Hijacking your own thread is sort of the equivalent of robbing your own house.

If you do not want an answer to your question then do not ask it :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

If you do not want an answer to your question then do not ask it :laugh:

You haven't answered anything. You just reply with irrelevant soundbites from Rush or Fox.

[red states rule]

You haven't answered anything. You just reply with irrelevant soundbites from Rush or Fox.

The collapse was caused by Dems trying to control the free market and lending requirements

That led to people who should be renters getting home loans. That is why defaults and foreclosures are at record highs with no end in sight

[red states rule]

Before 1929, not only was there no SEC, but corporations were under no obligation to disclose earnings. If that's not definitive enough, it's a pretty strong clue.

One major factor for the Great Depression (and what did stretch it out until 1941) were the tax increases




And then there's the Hoover/Roosevelt Great Depression. The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. President Hoover then thought it would be clever to try to tax America into prosperity. Using many of the same arguments that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are using today, President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. He raised many other taxes as well.

President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well. The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.

Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?

We all know that there are lots of factors influencing tax revenues from the rich, but the number one factor has to be the statutory tax rates government tells the rich they have to pay. Not only do the direct income tax consequences of higher tax rates on those in the highest brackets lead to higher deficits, the indirect effects magnify the tax revenue losses many fold.

As a result of higher tax rates on those people in the highest tax brackets, there will be less employment, output, sales, profits and capital gains—all leading to lower payrolls and lower total tax receipts. There will also be higher unemployment, poverty and lower incomes, all of which require more government spending. It's a Catch-22.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB1000142405274870397700457539388211267 4598.html

[Palin Rider]

The collapse was caused by Dems trying to control the free market and lending requirements

All by themselves, huh?

Do you even listen to yourself? :wtf:

[red states rule]

All by themselves, huh?

Do you even listen to yourself? :wtf:

Not that facts mean a damn thing to you

Here is the timeline of the warnings given by the Bush administration to the Dems

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


and here the Dems in their own words


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Palin Rider]

Forget about blaming F&F: their market share in subprimes DECLINED from 2004-2006. Of course, you're not going to listen to anything but what you want to hear...

[red states rule]

Forget about blaming F&F: their market share in subprimes DECLINED from 2004-2006. Of course, you're not going to listen to anything but what you want to hear...

You are way in over your head PR.

Fannie and Freddie bought up as many subprime loans as they could




Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Richard Syron stood before investors at New York's Palace Hotel in May last year lauding his company's ``cautious'' avoidance of the subprime-mortgage crisis.

What Syron, who was ousted last week, didn't say was that Freddie Mac had been gorging on subprime and Alt-A debt. While it and the larger Fannie Mae bought the safest classes of the mortgage-loan pools, Freddie's purchases totaled $158 billion, or 13 percent, of all the securities created in 2006 and 2007, according to data from its regulator and Inside MBS & ABS, a Bethesda, Maryland-based newsletter used by Federal Reserve researchers. Fannie, which was also seized by the U.S. on Sept. 7, bought an additional 5 percent.

The purchases by Freddie and Fannie helped fuel the boom in lending that led to frozen credit markets, more than $514 billion in bank losses and the collapse of two of the country's biggest securities firms. The subprime overhang may determine whether the $200 billion U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson earmarked for the companies will all be used to rev up mortgage lending. He may have to spend about $300 billion, William Poole, the former Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis president, said in a Bloomberg Television interview this month.

`Losses Accumulate'

The final sum ``is going to depend on how fast these losses accumulate,'' said Poole, 71. The deficit may grow quickly because the companies may be ``carrying some of these assets at prices above where they should be.'' Treasury spokeswoman Jennifer Zuccarelli declined to comment. The department's capital injections will keep the companies from defaulting on their almost $6 trillion of debt and mortgage-backed securities.

Fannie's 5-year debt yields traded at 0.78 percentage point above 5-year U.S. Treasuries at 4 p.m. New York time, compared with 0.94 before the bailout, according to data complied by Bloomberg.

Fannie Mae of Washington and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac held $114 billion of subprime and $71 billion in Alt-A securities as of June 30, according to the companies. Subprime mortgages were given to people with poor credit scores.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ay0Kkt47a3s4

[Palin Rider]

Of course, you're not going to listen to anything but what you want to hear... You are way in over your head PR.

Fannie and Freddie bought up as many subprime loans as they could

I rest my case.

[red states rule]

I rest my case.

I accept your surrender. Yu were in over your head and did not stand a chance anyway

[Palin Rider]

I accept your surrender. Yu were in over your head and did not stand a chance anyway

How could I have surrendered to someone who's blindfolded, plugging his ears, and continuously yelling, "DEMS ARE EVIL?"

:lalala:

[red states rule]

How could I have surrendered to someone who's blindfolded, plugging his ears, and continuously yelling, "DEMS ARE EVIL?"

:lalala:

Being a troll, you have lived down to all my expectations. You have very limited debate skills son.

[Palin Rider]

Being a troll, you have lived down to all my expectations. You have very limited debate skills son.

And you have zero debate skills. "Anchorman" is actually a good title for you. No original thought - just relaying whatever gets set in front of him.

[red states rule]

And you have zero debate skills. "Anchorman" is actually a good title for you. No original thought - just relaying whatever gets set in front of him.

You must have this bumber sticker on your car

"I BRAKE FOR HALLUCINATIONS'

[Palin Rider]

You must have this bumber sticker on your car

"I BRAKE FOR HALLUCINATIONS'

Pot, meet kettle.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not that facts mean a damn thing to you

Here is the timeline of the warnings given by the Bush administration to the Dems

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


and here the Dems in their own words


<o="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

THats totally awesome DUDE !!!!!

Strike THREE, yer outta here !!!!
High and tight fastball, liberal dems strike out again

My gut was telling me that info was out there somewhere, thanks for providing it for us.

[red states rule]

THats totally awesome DUDE !!!!!

Strike THREE, yer outta here !!!!
High and tight fastball, liberal dems strike out again

My gut was telling me that info was out there somewhere, thanks for providing it for us.

It nails the Dems to the wall and shows they were the ones responsible for the housing collapse

However, librals will ignore it, attack those who point out the words of Dems, and contoinue to think the government can reform the country out of this mess

[Noir]

She's still on probation. So she hasn't paid her debt yet. She's not finding work because employers won't hire convicted felons very often, especially if they are still serving their sentence. In the time she has been on unemployment she could have any number of jobs. They probably wouldn't pay well, but they would be work. Unemployment extensions just means people sit on their ass longer.

In one sentence you say how hard it is for her to get a job, and in the next that she could of had any number of them...

[red states rule]

In one sentence you say how hard it is for her to get a job, and in the next that she could of had any number of them...

My question is, if America is in the "Summer of Recovery" why does anyone need 99 weeks of unemployment?

[Kathianne]

My question is, if America is in the "Summer of Recovery" why does anyone need 99 weeks of unemployment?

So if it is not the 'summer of recovery', which is obvious, then what?

[red states rule]

So if it is not the 'summer of recovery', which is obvious, then what?

Then Obama's polices are a total and complete failure - which is clearly obvious

The only way to reverse the trend is for the Federal government to stop its war on the private sector, stop bailing out bloated state governments, repeal Obamacare, pass tax and spending cuts, and things will turn around

[Palin Rider]

In one sentence you say how hard it is for her to get a job, and in the next that she could of had any number of them...My question is, if America is in the "Summer of Recovery" why does anyone need 99 weeks of unemployment?

So you have no answer.

[LuvRPgrl]

In one sentence you say how hard it is for her to get a job, and in the next that she could of had any number of them...

He said they arent hired very often, not NEVER

If if you dont often get an offer for a job, over a period of time, you will have a number of jobs offered to you

[Noir]

He said they arent hired very often, not NEVER

If if you dont often get an offer for a job, over a period of time, you will have a number of jobs offered to you

Well at best it was put together clumsily.

But that aside, I know how hard it was for me to get a job when I moved to a new area (infact I posted about it on this board) I can only imagine just his much more difficult it would have been if tagged to every interview / application form I had to say 'btw I have a criminal record'

[red states rule]

Well at best it was put together clumsily.

But that aside, I know how hard it was for me to get a job when I moved to a new area (infact I posted about it on this board) I can only imagine just his much more difficult it would have been if tagged to every interview / application form I had to say 'btw I have a criminal record'

So we ned to keep her on unemployment because she decided to commit a criminal act?

The Dems have screwed the private sector and they are the ones who made the unemployment picture much worse

Here are the results since Dems took over Congress and since Obama became President

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ssIhiD8kKM&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ssIhiD8kKM&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Noir]

So we ned to keep her on unemployment because she decided to commit a criminal act?

The Dems have screwed the private sector and they are the ones who made the unemployment picture much worse

Here are the results since Dems took over Congress and since Obama became President

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ssIhiD8kKM&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ssIhiD8kKM&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

What's the alternative...Let her starve?

She did a stupid thing and she has (and will) pay dearly for it, and tge fact is that during these times job applications are ultra-competative because of the millions of newly unemployed. So unless she rises head and shoulders above someone else at an interview then surly the employer will always go for someone without a criminal record, no?

If I may also put it to you what exactly you expect these people to do when there help stops. Kathianne posted the otherday that something like 8 million people have lost their jobs in the private sector you're happy enough that likly millions of people will be cut of from any income at all because they can't get another job within 100 days?

Now ofcourse there will be people in the system who what unemployement benifits and have no intention of finding work, with so many millions in the system that's inevitable. But during these extra-ordinary times there are also many hard-working honest people that don't want to be unemployed but are not going to be employed in 3 months time. Do you think tge system that they've worked for and paid into for many years, or possibly decades, so be so quick to cut them off?

[red states rule]

What's the alternative...Let her starve?

She did a stupid thing and she has (and will) pay dearly for it, and tge fact is that during these times job applications are ultra-competative because of the millions of newly unemployed. So unless she rises head and shoulders above someone else at an interview then surly the employer will always go for someone without a criminal record, no?

If I may also put it to you what exactly you expect these people to do when there help stops. Kathianne posted the otherday that something like 8 million people have lost their jobs in the private sector you're happy enough that likly millions of people will be cut of from any income at all because they can't get another job within 100 days?

Now ofcourse there will be people in the system who what unemployement benifits and have no intention of finding work, with so many millions in the system that's inevitable. But during these extra-ordinary times there are also many hard-working honest people that don't want to be unemployed but are not going to be employed in 3 months time. Do you think tge system that they've worked for and paid into for many years, or possibly decades, so be so quick to cut them off?

Noir, she was there as a prop to extend unemployment for 99 WEEKS! That is damn near TWO YEARS!!!

Republicans had no prblem extending the benefits the only wanted them paid for. Dems refused

Remember libs have spent over ONE TRILLION via the stimulus bill and various "jobs" bills - yet things are getting worse

On top of that, Dems have two sets on tax increases set to kick in on Jan 1, 2011 and Obamacare mandates that will add to the cost of hiring and doing business

Bottom line is, the women should be pissed at libs for making her job search even harder

Another chapter of the "Summer of Wreckcovery"