Just thinking a nice thought

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:02 AM - Edit history (1)

A couple of years ago, the conversation was something like this:

Republicans: "We need super-duper austerity! Cut everything!"
Democrats: "Well, that's a very serious proposal that we'll consider, and no doubt we need lots of austerity. But how about just super austerity, banker bailouts and free trade? And cutting - not slashing - Social Security?"
Competent Economists: "We need the opposite of austerity, you scheisskopfs!!!"

It's now more like:
Republicans: "We need super-duper austerity! Cut everything!"
Democrats: "You suck, except for that Christie fellow, we like the cut of his jib. Of course the bankers need more bailouts, but we'll start reducing them. And of course we still need more free trade."
Elizabeth Warren et al: "Put bankers who break the law in jail. No more bull#%^* free trade agreements, or cutting Social Security. Attacking the 99% must stop."
Hillary: "No need to hate on bankers, Liz."

The conversation has shifted. This is good.

Our country is still a disaster from thirty years of lies, corruption, and stupidity. But every recovery needs to begin with a change in direction, and I think we have that.

Now if we can just replace one of the Inquisition crowd at SCOTUS with a person who's cool owitj math, science, and facts...

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Have Dems recently proposed more legislation/money for bank bailouts?

Democrats: "You suck. Of course the bankers need more bailouts

I honestly wasn't aware of that.

Also, your fictitious conversation between Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton is rather amusing...

[MannyGoldstein]

3. If anyone else asks that question, I'll answer.

But belligerent stalkers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5173684

get nothing.

[winter is coming]

10. I'll ask. I was away recently, and must have missed the story you're referring to. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Old story...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-12/fed-governor-admits-truth-about-qe-cant-go-wild-turkey-cold-turkey-overnight

[winter is coming]

14. Thanks. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Bzzzzzzt.......

The Fed's purchasing of treasuries does not equal Democratic proposals for bank bailouts.

You said:

Democrats: "You suck. Of course the bankers need more bailouts

Nice try though.

I think you need to lookup the definition of a bailout.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Tell that to Federal Reserve Governor Richard Fisher,

whose comments are the basis of that story. I guess he's a dumbass, unlike you.

But, certainly, don't let "facts", "reality" and "experts" get in the way of your two minutes hate.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. The Fed buying assets is not a Democratic proposal for bank bailouts

Your OP is just more misinformation.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Show us where I wrote it was a *proposal*.

More of your straw man nonsense.

Of course, Eric "Wall Street" Holder's efforts might count.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Well

In the fictitious conversation in your OP, Democrats said "of course the bankers need more bailouts".

The Democratic Party has said no such thing.

This is typical of you. You completely misinform people when it comes to Dems.

No surprise. You even once said you wished you could overturn the election of Obama which would of course mean McCain becomes Prez with Palin as VP.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Obama's actively defended the torrential bailouts coming from'

his appointees at the Fed. His fetish for Hooverian economics is epic.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. BWHAHAHAHA

1) The Federal Reserve buying treasuries is not the same thing as Dems saying banks need more bailouts.

2) Obama appointed Janet Yellen to the Fed chair who has been a big time supporter of QE throughout the years.

3) Wall Street wanted Yellen ---->> http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023681157

4) Elizabeth Warren wanted Yellen --->>>http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023676001

OOPS!!!

You are just so full of fail tonight. I know you hate it when I pick you apart, but I cannot let your smears go unchallenged.

Sorry.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. LOL!

Gawd dayum....love ya, Manny....

[sheshe2]

31. You belligerent stalker you~

[Cali_Democrat]

32. LOL

[Rex]

2. Hey now, Banks need pools and cars and houses in the Cocono Islands too!

Good thing they can have 'living wills' now! That good old 'too big to fail' stuff...gosh I wonder if they take a dump just like I do?

http://www.moneynews.com/Personal-Finance/Banks-Living-Wills-Silent-Treatment-Regulators/2014/07/02/id/580422/

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Their dumps are received in the splendor they deserve

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-littman/john-thains-35000-toilet_b_162350.html

[RobertEarl]

7. It's how trickle works...... n/t

[Rex]

9. We are expected to fall on our own swords for the wealthy.

As if it is the patriotic thing to do.

[bigtree]

4. mulitple imaginary conversations - all in the manny voice

seek help, man

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Ah, stalker number 2 has arrived.

I am truly flattered.

[bigtree]

8. I thought you liked an audience

. . . for these performances of yours.

No heckling back. It's bad form.

[sheshe2]

17. LOL #3 reporting~

Hey Manny~

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. #4 reportng for duty

[sheshe2]

29. ...

[joshcryer]

11. If Warren is serious she needs to run.

It's the only way the bankers go to jail. The only way.

They will be 2 years away from immunity in 2016. Two years. You need to spend at least $100 million to take them down, too.

The only person who can do would be the President ordering their AG to get it done. Obama, unfortunately, is not that President. Clinton, probably, is not that President (she'd be more inclined to send Bush to the Hague than go after bankers).

Only Warren, Sanders, or Reich would do it.

And odds are the bankers still win.

[MisterP]

16. "Hillary 2016: Don't let the WRONG cat take charge of Mouseland!" nt

[canoeist52]

18. Yep, the blinkers are on. Just waiting for the actual lane shift.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Well said! nt

[Samantha]

20. Why think about replacing just one when 4 of them should be impeached?

All we have to do is find a way to win the House (who decides whether or not a Supreme Court Justice should be impeached) and hold onto the Senate, where we would need a two-thirds majority to vote to "retire" them after the trial has been held.

I believe I read once a gerrymandered district favoring one party can still be won by the opposing party if approximately a 7 point lead can be gained on election day. If that is true, we could win some unexpected gerrymandered Republican districts.

So sure this would require a Herculean effort, but it sure would be worth the try.

Sam

[MannyGoldstein]

22. That's kind of radical

Sounds good.

[Samantha]

24. It would be the safer move though, right

The way the Dems' luck has been going, if we could get the 1, the day thereafter another 1 of our 5 would evaporate.

Sam

[Scuba]

33. I love the hilarious responses that suggest leading Dems aren't in Wall Street's pockets.

My sides hurt from laughing so much. Thank you Manny.