I had a hunch for a long, long time there were shenanigans at Moody's Investor Service over its investment ratings. You can't have assign a AAA rating one day and junk status the next without something fishy going on.
Well, it looks like McClatchy News Service found out that Moody's fired analysts that warned of trouble before the 2008 financial meltdown.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/77244.html
That's the second major news coup McClatchy's has had in recent years. The other was that it found -- even before the invasion started -- the reasons the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq were highly suspect.
" "The story at Moody's doesn't start in 2007; it starts in 2000," said Mark Froeba, a Harvard-educated lawyer and senior vice president who joined Moody's structured finance group in 1997.
"This was a systematic and aggressive strategy to replace a culture that was very conservative, an accuracy-and-quality oriented (culture), a getting-the-rating-right kind of culture, with a culture that was supposed to be 'business-friendly,' but was consistently less likely to assign a rating that was tougher than our competitors," Froeba said.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 18, 2009, 12:12:46 PM
I had a hunch for a long, long time there were shenanigans at Moody's Investor Service over its investment ratings. You can't have assign a AAA rating one day and junk status the next without something fishy going on.
Well, it looks like McClatchy News Service found out that Moody's fired analysts that warned of trouble before the 2008 financial meltdown.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/77244.html
That's the second major news coup McClatchy's has had in recent years. The other was that it found -- even before the invasion started -- the reasons the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq were highly suspect.
Here is another major news coup from McClatchy's, headlined: "As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/20530.html
Or how about this integrity, non-biased headline: "'Those crazy Palins: Todd's half-sister indicted in burglary'" (they later were forced to drop the "Those crazy Palins" part)
Or this hard-hitting story of national significance, headlined:
"Is that really a naked woman in Dick Cheney's sunglasses?"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/33328.html
Yep, McClatchy sure snags those big stories. But hey, way to get your Bush Derangement Syndrome fix in a thread you started about something completely unrelated. I applaud your creativity.
Good thread, rwarn.
Ironic how gweed is calling out McClatchy as an example of "liberal bias" when rwarn quotes a perfectly good story.
Yeah, Guido's tagline these days is a tribute to the CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST MEDIA PIGS who turned a story about minority kids singing about a new president into one about Obama's "brainwashing"....
"Barack Hussein Obama.... hmm, hmm, hmmm."
Exposing Obama's "Brainwash The Kids" Scheme, With KTRH's Michael Berry
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/09/obama_speech_schools.php
The liberal and conservative newsmedia were more than kind to Bush when he pre-emptively sent our troups to invade Iraq rather than the country that spawned the terrorists who hit us on 9-11: Saudi Arabia.
Bush = Worst prez of my lifetime, barely nudging out Jimmy Carter.
Funny how Gweed insists on how evil it was for Obama to use the phrase "spread the wealth" yet completely ignores this story of Wall Street greed and manipulation because he wants to kill the messenger (in this case, McClatchy)...
Which did more DAMAGE to our economy, Guido?
The black woman who thinks Obama's gonna pay her rent/mortgage OR the greed and cronyism and "business friendly" atmosphere at Moody's?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/77244.html
"The story at Moody's doesn't start in 2007; it starts in 2000," said Mark Froeba, a Harvard-educated lawyer and senior vice president who joined Moody's structured finance group in 1997.
"This was a systematic and aggressive strategy to replace a culture that was very conservative, an accuracy-and-quality oriented (culture), a getting-the-rating-right kind of culture, with a culture that was supposed to be 'business-friendly,' but was consistently less likely to assign a rating that was tougher than our competitors," Froeba said.
After Froeba and others raised concerns that the methodology Moody's was using to rate investment offerings allowed the firm's profit interests to trump honest ratings, he and nine other outspoken critics in his group were "downsized" in December 2007.
"As a matter of policy, Moody's does not comment on personnel matters, but no employee has ever been let go for trying to strengthen our compliance function," Adler said.
Moody's was spun off from Dun & Bradstreet in 2000, and the first company shares began trading on Oct. 31 that year at $12.57. Executives set out to erase a conservative corporate culture.
To promote competition, in the 1970s ratings agencies were allowed to switch from having investors pay for ratings to having the issuers of debt pay for them. That led the ratings agencies to compete for business by currying favor with investment banks that would pay handsomely for the ratings they wanted.
Wall Street paid as much as $1 million for some ratings, and ratings agency profits soared. This new revenue stream swamped earnings from ordinary ratings.
"In 2001, Moody's had revenues of $800.7 million; in 2005, they were up to $1.73 billion; and in 2006, $2.037 billion. The exploding profits were fees from packaging . . . and for granting the top-class AAA ratings, which were supposed to mean they were as safe as U.S. government securities," said Lawrence McDonald in his recent book, "A Colossal Failure of Common Sense."
I found it amusing that it took two days for guido to respond, and it was still lame. :D
And in case you haven't been paying attention, guido, I've insisted for years on this forum that there was something funny going on in the financial and housing industry -- simply because you don't have real estate values going up 30 and 40 percent per year without something really weird going on behind the scenes.
Quote from: USRufnex on October 20, 2009, 08:03:27 PM
Good thread, rwarn.
Ironic how gweed is calling out McClatchy as an example of "liberal bias" when rwarn quotes a perfectly good story.
Yeah, Guido's tagline these days is a tribute to the CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST MEDIA PIGS who turned a story about minority kids singing about a new president into one about Obama's "brainwashing"....
"Barack Hussein Obama.... hmm, hmm, hmmm."
Exposing Obama's "Brainwash The Kids" Scheme, With KTRH's Michael Berry
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/09/obama_speech_schools.php
The liberal and conservative newsmedia were more than kind to Bush when he pre-emptively sent our troups to invade Iraq rather than the country that spawned the terrorists who hit us on 9-11: Saudi Arabia.
Bush = Worst prez of my lifetime, barely nudging out Jimmy Carter.
You have got to be a complete idiot or else you thought, "How can I prove gweed's point any better". It's not the news story, its the source's erratic history and RW's clear BDS. Really, what does "shenanigans at Moody's Investor Service over its investment ratings" have to do with the war in Iraq? NOTHING. That was the point I was making you mental midget.
Oh, and RW, the delay in my response was because I WAS ON VACATION and I HAD WORK TO DO. Although arguing with the likes of you (as opposed to CF, waterboy and others that actually try) does not require a lot of brain power, there are times that I am not on the nets.
Still, we have those crazy Palins...or more importantly, we have these brainwashed kids (good enuf for ya soccerboy?):
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2009, 08:32:54 AM
You have got to be a complete idiot or else you thought, "How can I prove gweed's point any better". It's not the news story, its the source's erratic history and RW's clear BDS. Really, what does "shenanigans at Moody's Investor Service over its investment ratings" have to do with the war in Iraq? NOTHING. That was the point I was making you mental midget.
blah blah blah ranting blah blah
The point I made about Iraq -- and now Moody's -- was that McClatchy has a history of breaking stories that no one else has.
OK ... so let's get down to it. What part specifically about the Moody's do you find suspect?
And are you OK with Moody's poor ratings performance in the days leading up to the meltdown?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 21, 2009, 10:23:47 AM
The point I made about Iraq -- and now Moody's -- was that McClatchy has a history of breaking stories that no one else has.
OK ... so let's get down to it. What part specifically about the Moody's do you find suspect?
And are you OK with Moody's poor ratings performance in the days leading up to the meltdown?
If the story is correct it is outrageous and Moody's should be condemned. But that was never my point. You just couldn't resist jabbing Bush and I was calling you out, just as many in the forum call me out for knocking Obama.
As an aside, if you give props for "breaking stories that no one else has", have you acknowledged Glenn Beck's story on Van Jones or Andrew Breitbart's "prostitute-gate" story on ACORN? Hell, as to the latter, well known conservative thinker Jon Stewart when after the media:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/16/jon-stewart-to-media-on-acorn-where-the-hell-were-you/
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2009, 11:42:08 AM
If the story is correct it is outrageous and Moody's should be condemned. But that was never my point. You just couldn't resist jabbing Bush and I was calling you out, just as many in the forum call me out for knocking Obama.
So ... you admit there is no reason to believe the story isn't accurate. Glad you finally cleared that up.
And so there
isn't a reason that I shouldn't jab Bush? You don't think an unnecessary war that's cost thousands of lives and a trillion dollars
isn't worth jabbing over?
If you want to deal with small-potatoes controversies such as ACORN and teleprompters, go ahead. That's your prerogative.
I'd like to think that an unnecessary, bloody and expensive war and a ratings company that fell down on the job and thus exacerbated the world economy's near-collapse are a tad more important, and that a news service that uncovers these should be spotlighted and praised. But that's just me.
Needless to say, I think your outrage is misplaced. Or just simply warped.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 21, 2009, 04:32:24 PM
And so there isn't a reason that I shouldn't jab Bush? You don't think an unnecessary war that's cost thousands of lives and a trillion dollars isn't worth jabbing over?
Sure, if you believe the war was unnecessary. But when you take that issue and link it up to an entirely different topic, you come off petty. Kinda like this:
The Tulsa mayoral race is getting very heated. Candidates name-calling, personal attacks, boycotts...Oh, and Obama is a liar. He lied about public funding, lied about military tribunals, lied about no lobbyists in his administration, lied about limiting unemployment if stimulus passed, lied about no taxes on those making less than $250K. Ya see how that works? Makes about as much sense as what you did.
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2009, 05:52:49 PM
Sure, if you believe the war was unnecessary. But when you take that issue and link it up to an entirely different topic, you come off petty. Kinda like this:
The Tulsa mayoral race is getting very heated. Candidates name-calling, personal attacks, boycotts...Oh, and Obama is a liar. He lied about public funding, lied about military tribunals, lied about no lobbyists in his administration, lied about limiting unemployment if stimulus passed, lied about no taxes on those making less than $250K. Ya see how that works? Makes about as much sense as what you did.
I disagree. It was a comment about McClatchy's ability to get big, big stories that no one else did. One big, big story was about the run-up to the Iraq war; the other was about Moody's wildly inaccurate ratings. Both stories detailed situations that had humongous implications for the entire world.
And if you're still thinking the Iraq war was necessary, well ...
Except that there is a Bush connection to Moody's ratings..... Republicans love to talk about "personal responsibility" and how to get tough on crime, drugs, etc etc.... yet when it comes to the wealthy, they use rhetoric like "voluntary compliance" and "self regulating"
ACORN and Welfare queens could never wreak the financial havoc that Wall Street wealth redistributors have wrought on this country.... but go ahead, blame the powerless...
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/buhdydharma/republican-lies.jpg)
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 21, 2009, 07:22:56 PM
I disagree. It was a comment about McClatchy's ability to get big, big stories that no one else did. One big, big story was about the run-up to the Iraq war; the other was about Moody's wildly inaccurate ratings. Both stories detailed situations that had humongous implications for the entire world.
Well, let's give three cheers up to the National Enquirer for breaking the "big, big" John Edwards extramarital affair story notwithstanding the other stories it breaks.
And yes I still believe the war in Iraq was necessary. Sorry if you can't handle that. No more bribes to families of suicide bombers who kill Israelis, no more terrorist training camps, no more harassing of our planes in the "no fly" zone, oh, and that whole 20 million people now living free and not under the boot of a dictator is also kinda nice. Do I wish there had been the WMD stockpiles? Yes. Do I wish there had been a better post invasion plan? Yes. However, I will never, never, say any war was unnecessary where American soldiers' lives were lost fighting it.
Quote from: USRufnex on October 21, 2009, 07:34:21 PM
Except that there is a Bush connection to Moody's ratings..... Republicans love to talk about "personal responsibility" and how to get tough on crime, drugs, etc etc.... yet when it comes to the wealthy, they use rhetoric like "voluntary compliance" and "self regulating"
ACORN and Welfare queens could never wreak the financial havoc that Wall Street wealth redistributors have wrought on this country.... but go ahead, blame the powerless...
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/buhdydharma/republican-lies.jpg)
I knew it. It's Bush's fault!!!!
Oh, and here we go again with those evil rich people out there. All those rich who provide the jobs to people like you; often pay more in taxes per year than you would earn in how many years?; give more to charities that help those "powerless" welfare queens than the likes of you; spend more at shops/stores/restaurants which basically drives the economy...Come clean USRuf, how many people you employ?
Dear wealth-redistribution-by-wealthy-people-apologist,
There you go again.
Come clean. How often do you beat your wife?
XXXX's and OOOO's.
RUF
All those rich who provide the jobs to people like you; often pay more in taxes per year than you would earn in how many years?; give more to charities that help those "powerless" welfare queens than the likes of you; spend more at shops/stores/restaurants which basically drives the economy...
I'd love to see this country as a "meritocracy." It's not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good."
---John Adams
"Fear of death increases in exact proportion to increase in wealth."
---Ernest Hemingway
"Capital is that part of wealth which is devoted to obtaining further wealth"
---Alfred Marshall
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
---G. K. Chesterton
"The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice."
---Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
Quote from: USRufnex on October 21, 2009, 08:16:23 PM
Dear wealth-redistribution-by-wealthy-people-apologist,
Come clean. How often do you beat your wife?
XXXX's and OOOO's.
RUF.
So the answer is No, you do not employ anyone and, Yes, you are a member of the moocher class whose livelihood is tied to someone "rich". Sucks to be you dude. I mean, imagine how your life could be upended because of that rich guy's mood change.
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2009, 08:55:26 PM
So the answer is No, you do not employ anyone and, Yes, you are a member of the moocher class whose livelihood is tied to someone "rich". Sucks to be you dude. I mean, imagine how your life could be upended because of that rich guy's mood change.
Listen, oligarchist:
My grandfather never employed anyone; he worked for "ma' bell" for decades.
He fought for his country.
He was more of a MAN THAN YOU WILL EVER BE.
Did that make him a member of the "moocher class?"
I tried. I studied, got good grades, got a full tuition college scholarship.
I worked as hard as I could work over the course of decades. I failed.
If I ever lose my job, or get a different job, or try to start a business,
I will have a pre-existing condition: colon cancer.
Does that make me part of the "moocher class?"
The soprano from Oklahoma who will be singing the lead in Lucia di Lammermoor at Tulsa Opera....... she doesn't employ anybody.... does that make her part of the "moocher class?"
I do not despise wealth-- I hate pompous, holier than thou, soul-less, wealth-and-greed apologists like you, Gweed.
I'll be sure and tell everybody in the office tomorrow that you think they're all part of the "moocher class." ::)
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2009, 07:46:38 PM
Well, let's give three cheers up to the National Enquirer for breaking the "big, big" John Edwards extramarital affair story notwithstanding the other stories it breaks.
And yes I still believe the war in Iraq was necessary. Sorry if you can't handle that. No more bribes to families of suicide bombers who kill Israelis, no more terrorist training camps, no more harassing of our planes in the "no fly" zone, oh, and that whole 20 million people now living free and not under the boot of a dictator is also kinda nice. Do I wish there had been the WMD stockpiles? Yes. Do I wish there had been a better post invasion plan? Yes. However, I will never, never, say any war was unnecessary where American soldiers' lives were lost fighting it.
Like I care about John Edwards and his extramarital affair. Like I said, it doesn't have one iota of importance compared to an unnecessary war and a near-collapse of the world economy. These are big, big things that have global implications for years, maybe decades.
And as for Iraq, a trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. soldiers' lives to put in place an Islamic republic strongly linked to Iran is a good thing, right? ::)
Wow. I could write Guido's posts for him at this point.
Quote from: USRufnex on October 21, 2009, 09:40:09 PM
I'll be sure and tell everybody in the office tomorrow that you think they're all part of the "moocher class." ::)
Go ahead loser. And while you are at it, ask them how often they beat their wives...
Updated: Thanks for proving my point about you being a moocher, mooching off your grandfather's legacy to make some inane point. Now, you will excuse me while I bathe in a huge pile of money.
Quote from: we vs us on October 22, 2009, 06:05:15 AM
Wow. I could write Guido's posts for him at this point.
Do you have the time? After all, you are busy writing the posts for USRuf, RW, trog, townsend or are they writing for you because you all have the same message.
Quote from: USRufnex on October 21, 2009, 07:34:21 PM
Except that there is a Bush connection to Moody's ratings..... Republicans love to talk about "personal responsibility" and how to get tough on crime, drugs, etc etc.... yet when it comes to the wealthy, they use rhetoric like "voluntary compliance" and "self regulating"
ACORN and Welfare queens could never wreak the financial havoc that Wall Street wealth redistributors have wrought on this country.... but go ahead, blame the powerless...
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/buhdydharma/republican-lies.jpg)
Believe it or not, a lot of those Wall Street types are card-carrying Democrats. There's a D.C. connection to Moody's ratings would be a more accurate statement.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2009, 09:22:26 AM
Go ahead loser. And while you are at it, ask them how often they beat their wives...
I love watching an attorney resort to AdHoms. Reinforces my notion on most attorneys.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 21, 2009, 11:52:12 PM
Like I care about John Edwards and his extramarital affair. Like I said, it doesn't have one iota of importance compared to an unnecessary war and a near-collapse of the world economy. These are big, big things that have global implications for years, maybe decades.
And as for Iraq, a trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. soldiers' lives to put in place an Islamic republic strongly linked to Iran is a good thing, right? ::)
Way to absolutely ignore the point I was making and my comparison to an irrelevant jabbing at Obama. Can't refute an argument, change the subject.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2009, 09:41:28 AM
Way to absolutely ignore the point I was making and my comparison to an irrelevant jabbing at Obama. Can't refute an argument, change the subject.
Like I said, I care much more about stories that have big import. If you want to obsess over trivialities such as Edwards' sex life, go ahead. I think unnecessary and expensive wars and a near-collapse of the world economy are much bigger deals. YMMV.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 22, 2009, 09:46:50 AM
Like I said, I care much more about stories that have big import. If you want to obsess over trivialities such as Edwards' sex life, go ahead. I think unnecessary and expensive wars and a near-collapse of the world economy are much bigger deals. YMMV.
Way to absolutely ignore the point I was making and my comparison to an irrelevant jabbing at Obama. Can't refute an argument, change the subject.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2009, 09:50:00 AM
Way to absolutely ignore the point I was making and my comparison to an irrelevant jabbing at Obama. Can't refute an argument, change the subject.
Repeat yourself much? :D
Po' widdle guido's gettin' mad and calling other people names. :D
I'm starting to doubt now that guido ever went to law school. Throwing childish insults like that indicates that he/she didn't even graduate from fifth grade. :D
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 22, 2009, 09:51:39 AM
Repeat yourself much? :D
Po' widdle guido's gettin' mad and calling other people names. :D
Umm, I repeated myself on purpose because you still have not addressed my point. As for name-calling, are you referring to my calling usruf a "loser" and a "moocher"? Sorry if that offended YOU and anyone else, but I think usruf can take care of himself and does not need you to fight his battle. Curious, though, how you admonish me for name calling and in the same breath call me "childish". Just wow to that rank hypocrisy.
Gweed: Q: How many people you employ?
USRuf: Q: How often do you beat your wife?
Answer: Mu.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mu&defid=459861
"Mu" is the correct answer to the classic trick question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer "yes" is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but "no" is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her. According to various Discordians and Douglas Hofstadter the correct answer is usually "mu", a Japanese word alleged to mean "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions".
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2009, 09:23:57 AM
Do you have the time? After all, you are busy writing the posts for USRuf, RW, trog, townsend or are they writing for you because you all have the same message.
Wow. Just wow. ::)
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2009, 11:18:32 AM
Umm, I repeated myself on purpose because you still have not addressed my point. As for name-calling, are you referring to my calling usruf a "loser" and a "moocher"? Sorry if that offended YOU and anyone else, but I think usruf can take care of himself and does not need you to fight his battle. Curious, though, how you admonish me for name calling and in the same breath call me "childish". Just wow to that rank hypocrisy.
"Childish" is an adjective, not a noun, and therefore is not name-calling. :D
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2009, 09:22:26 AM
Go ahead loser. And while you are at it, ask them how often they beat their wives...
Updated: Thanks for proving my point about you being a moocher, mooching off your grandfather's legacy to make some inane point. Now, you will excuse me while I bathe in a huge pile of money.
Thanks for proving my point.
Funny how you take my "how often do you beat your wife" point LITERALLY.
I thought "lawyers" were smarter than that.
You're the one trying to make inane points; and you're the one who called me a POS.
Mooching off my grandfather's legacy? Using your condescending arguments, he was a moocher.... So will you now admit your argument has no merit?..... and that you're a complete and utter rightwing political whore....
Do you remember why Bush gave out those tax cuts after he got elected with 500,000 less votes than Al Gore?
It was because the government was running a "surplus," and dubya told us, "It's your money."
So, using Bush's own justification for dismantling of the Clinton tax code, he should have gone back to using tax increases to PAY FOR TWO WARS.
But instead, we were supposed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Fool me once, shame on you.....
What if TU only was able to raise $15mil for stadiums renovations and a new pressbox?
What if the Dallas Cowboys had to use Texas Stadium for another 10 years?
What if T Boone only had $50 million to help out the state-run school at OSU?
What if George Kaiser could only have raised $65mil in private $$$ to combine with the proposed River Tax?
What if the Channels people didn't have an extra $10mil lying around to pay a name-architect to design three man-made islands in the middle of the Arkansas River?
Who brought us all that money? The kinda money that makes fortunes?....... the wealth redistributors over on Wall Street, that's who.
A philanthropist... is not a philanthropist... is not a philanthropist.
Quote from: USRufnex on October 26, 2009, 06:23:02 PM
Thanks for proving my point.
Funny how you take my "how often do you beat your wife" point LITERALLY.
I thought "lawyers" were smarter than that.
You're the one trying to make inane points; and you're the one who called me a POS.
Mooching off my grandfather's legacy? Using your condescending arguments, he was a moocher.... So will you now admit your argument has no merit?..... and that you're a complete and utter rightwing political whore....
Do you remember why Bush gave out those tax cuts after he got elected with 500,000 less votes than Al Gore?
It was because the government was running a "surplus," and dubya told us, "It's your money."
So, using Bush's own justification for dismantling of the Clinton tax code, he should have gone back to using tax increases to PAY FOR TWO WARS.
But instead, we were supposed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Fool me once, shame on you.....
What if TU only was able to raise $15mil for stadiums renovations and a new pressbox?
What if the Dallas Cowboys had to use Texas Stadium for another 10 years?
What if T Boone only had $50 million to help out the state-run school at OSU?
What if George Kaiser could only have raised $65mil in private $$$ to combine with the proposed River Tax?
What if the Channels people didn't have an extra $10mil lying around to pay a name-architect to design three man-made islands in the middle of the Arkansas River?
Who brought us all that money? The kinda money that makes fortunes?....... the wealth redistributors over on Wall Street, that's who.
A philanthropist... is not a philanthropist... is not a philanthropist.
Here's hoping that the poor, down on this luck soul that provides you a job takes his money and runs. BTW, still haven't hired anyone huh? Still mooching a living off those evil wealthy and successful people you want hammered with higher taxes? You remind me of every reason why my charitable giving has changed. Thanks for the refresher!
And one more thing, not a good idea to be arguing Bush's fiscal discipline with the current moron in office. Last I heard, Obama has given us a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit and a nearly 1 TRILLION dollar boondoggle masquerading as a stimulus package. And the efficacy of that stimulus package? You guessed it! It apparently has maxed out:
So here's a toast to that approaching 10% unemployment rate coming down the pike (and you perhaps joining that number). You remember, the rate that was not to surpass 8% if stimulus passed? Incidentally, why aren't you screaming at Obama over that unemployment rate, over the outrageous deficit, over the huge number of our dead and wounded in Afghanistan....
^^^Pompous. Arrogant. Despicable.^^^
So, you use charitable giving as a bully pulpit for your political beliefs?
Nothing new.
Thanks for reminding me why I support a progressive tax code..... I'd support a flat tax if people like you didn't exist. I'd support a flat tax if we didn't have financial institutions busy re-distributing wealth in an exaggerated way from those who truly produced and earned it.
I chose not to supervise people or start a business.
That does not make me or anyone like me (including my grandfather) a "moocher."
So, people who've never worked to the extent that I've worked are worthy of admiration simply because their money makes more money than I do?
I think not.
I admire true philanthropy.... I admire hard work... I admire middle management who are more likely to "create jobs" than anything done by a single CEO or child of priviledge.... I've done my share of screening job applicants, including management....
I'm sorry. Who's REALLY the moocher here?
(http://counterecon.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ishot-115.jpg)
Quote from: USRufnex on October 28, 2009, 09:37:51 PM
(http://www.cagle.com/news/WallStreetBailout/images/matson.jpg)
Must...resist...urge...to...give...props...to...USRUF. Can't, because I agree with the point of that cartoon.