Damn! We’re running out of The tears of the homeless
Picture by: Unknown
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous It’s Good to be King? | More Like We Should Have Learned Our Lesson Next »
Only in Beverly Hills
» 128 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Deelz on Crowd Pleaser Andrew Long on Vandals Cashing In Daniel Bell on Vandals Cashing In noname on I’m So Live imnotreallyhere on Time Travel Protester imnotreallyhere on GREECE imnotreallyhere on GREECE eddi on Does to Jets What it Does to… Lyerra on Haven’t They Heard of Ce… Clueless the amazing… on My Bad 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Animal Memes: OCD Otter - Takes a Long Lunch
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Yikes.
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Duuuuuude
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
This Is the Cleanest My Car Has Ever Been
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Go To Your Room!
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Darth Maul And His Cat
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Stripey Hoggies
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Roman Emo
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Turn on the Jets!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Owlways and 7eva
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Good Guy George
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Timothy Olyphant Totally Looks Like Cristian de la Fuente
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Darth Vader Kokeshi
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Ring of the Day: Diamonds on my Grill
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
UFO Bathtub
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
With Obama still president there will probably be a new crop coming along here soon so don’t worry.
Mr “I don’t care about the poor” will certainly do better
Wait we have him already, what are you talking about?
Right, which is why he said to let Detroit go bankrupt, or threw a fit when American car companies were bailed out, right?
Are you referring to the poor car companies, the poor UAW workers, or the poor union bosses?
I’m referring to businesses like GM, Crisler, and Ford, whose collapse would have cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Americans their jobs.
Ford didn’t take the bailout money.
Because the markets were stabilized, and that’s all they needed to stay afloat.
Right…
I never cease to be amused the spins you will make to justice the absurd and ridiculous claims of the DNC.
BTW – crisler is spelled Chrysler.
Heh, getting corrected on spelling or grammar by Archer is like getting a lecture on fidelity from Newt Gingrich.
No, and they are reaping the moral benefits of that decision (while hurting a bit since they couldn’t drop their obligations like the other two).
But they would have been really hurt by a fire sale of the competitors’ inventories if they had collapsed, as well as major supply chain issues.
@No, and they are reaping the moral benefits of that decision
One must admire you leftists unwavering dedication being so wrong so often.
No, Ford refused to take the money because they new it was not a good business decision after seeing how much Obama was going to take over their operations and business practices.
That’s a teabagger fantasy. Ford’s financial position was better than GM’s or Chrysler’s, so they didn’t need to take the bailout. They would have if their financial situation had called for it.
And if Obama took over GM’s business practices, he must have done a pretty good job, seeing how GM is now doing better than either Ford or Chrysler.
But it’s true that Ford would have appreciated no-strings-attached money (also know as “The Banks’ deal”).
They turned it down because they were not hurting enough to accept the governance conditions that came attached with the money.
It might have to do with the Ford family having a significant influence, while GM was less of a personal ownership…
Alright, that’s one, I wonder when Nailin’s clock is going to be right again today…
I know five life-long GM customers that bought Ford and decided not to buy GM anytime soon… that’s $150k right there.
That’s what I meant by “moral benefits”
I know several people like that as well, but also a few who went out and bought GM vehicles to show their support.
Obama cares about the poor, he cares about them so much he wants to make a whole country of them.
Mind making a comment with actual grounding in reality? I’d rather have a discussion with a person, not a mouthpiece.
Shove off.
Apologies, but YOU were the one who implied that it was our Democratically elected president’s goal to destroy wealth in this country. I feel my retort was warranted.
Actually, it’s the rich Republican vultures who are going to make America into a nation of poor people, the bottom 99%, at least.
^^Now here’s a mouthpiece! For what I’m still not sure…
Considering what comes out, I don’t think ‘mouth’ is the proper word for it.
Rather than mouth, some prefer wiener.
Speaking personally again, Nailin? Or this is more gay hate speech from you.
Yes, it’s always gay hate speech when someone suggests that a woman might be attracted to phallic-shaped foodstuffs.
nailin – Yes, it’s always gay hate speech when someone suggests that a woman might be attracted to phallic-shaped foodstuffs.
Yet you’re the one made the odious suggestion.
And suggesting that woman are attracted to men is gay hate speech how?
Geary you don’t have to have a discussion with me, ever. It’s still a free country. Also, if you think I’m a mouthpiece you should read some of your own posts now and then.
While I heartily agree that Geary’s posts are not always demonstrative of critical thinking (e.g. ‘debt not a problem’), your initial post was obnoxious and pointless, to a degree that I would normally associate with Nailin or Frank.
You’re not going to convince anyone with off-the-cuff one liners, and you’re not going to amuse anyone who doesn’t already hold your views. If your intended audience is Frank and Archer, go right ahead, but I’ll be sorry to see you go.
It wasn’t all that funny, kind of a stretch but everyone has bad days. I can’t believe you thought I was trying to convince anyone of anything.
You have learned much, grasshopper.
You’re not going to try that whole ‘grab the wiener from my hand’ business again, are you? That never works.
Larry Craig is a bodhisattva.
Bravo, Nailin.
Like YOU stated the dems fought for civil rights in the 50s and YOU stated that chinese oil drilling companies would hire local labor THUS implying that US companies would not if they drilled here in the US.
You no room to accuse anyone of being inconsistent, you are the epitome of it.
Actually, many Democrats, did fight for civil rights in the 50′s, especially in the North. Then, in the 60′s when the Democratic Party as a whole pushed civil rights, the Republicans received a white flight influx of Southern racists that made the GOP what it is today, the party of racism.
The majority of the party did not fight for civil right ESPECIALLY the leadership.
*majority of the democrat*
Yet, it was the Democratic Party that won the fight for civil rights, and the Democratic leader of the party that was responsible for the Civil Rights Act, and the next leader of the Democratic Party who signed the bill into law.
All while the Republican Party was becoming the lifeboat for the Ku Klux Klan.
That’s really ironic coming from you.
Actually, you do sound like a talking puppet for right-wing propaganda.
HmmmDropping unemployment and house sales have leveled off and are starting to rise. So… exactly what were you referring to?
Her imagination, I assume. ;3
Your’s and Q’s apparently.
Unemployment is NOT dropping, it’s rising still. A lot of people on unemployment are going on to disability.
Check the U6 number.
U6 counts people who are on part-time employment or seasonal employment as ‘unemployed’, so that doesn’t really count.
When you are looking for full time work and have full time bills to pay then part-time or seasonal work is almost as bad as being unemployed. In fact those people probably earn less than people who still qualify for unemployment. That’s why it’s called underemployment. It’s usually not even enough to cover all the bills.
However, Archer said ‘unemployment’, which is U4
You’d do better to refute the point with numbers rather than quibble over definitions.
U6 is decreasing as well.
/proceeds to quibble over definitions
U5 is also unemployment. It is U4 + the Marginally Attached, defined as
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Apologies, still a bit ill and things randomly change in my mind from being brilliant to stupid.
I work at a homeless shelter, I can tell you that the residents here definitely feel better with Obama in office than a republican who is only concerned with their own money. I love how all republican blame Obama for the economic crisis while conveniently forgetting how “cap’n Howdy” aka Bush went from a nice surplus coming out of the Clinton administration to trillions of dollars in debt in 8 years. Imagine that, it would take more than 4 years to clean up that idiot’s mess…
Unemployment rate under Bush = 4%
How’d that bubble work out for ya?
Bubbles abound. Biggest one is in Washington DC right now.
Bush and his Republican cronies destroyed the economy. When Dubya left office the unemployment rate had, in one year, gone from 5.0% to 7.7%. The effects of the Republican devastation was already being felt. And the continuing rise in unemployment was primarily due to the conservative-inspired financial meltdown.
So the dotcom bubble for Clinton doesn’t count?
Teeny tiny bubble, it was. Doesn’t really compare to the combined lending, housing, and insurance bubbles that all burst simultaneously at the end of Bush’s term.
When we had a Democrat Congress.
I love how you criticize govt inertia but are oblivious to how long it takes for bubble to grow and for recessions to end.
“Too big to fail” is kind of a consequence of and administration that for 8 years did not object to any merger…
Well obviously it takes as much time for a recession to end as Obama needs. LOL! Until it’s time to get elected again. Then suddenly 8% unemployment is something to crow about!
Actually, the recession already ended, economically speaking. We’ve had a steady 2% growth rate for several quarters now.
Unemployment stands at 8.3% last I heard. Maybe its not a depression, but it’s still not good.
It kinda dips and spikes. Keep in mind that unemployment works on a sort of lag to economic growth, it takes a while for employers to feel confident enough to start hiring again. This is generally the distinction between when the recession/depression ends and when it ‘feels’ like it ends.
8.3% is 8.3% it’s kinda like a casualty rate for a combat unit. It doesn’t matter so much unless you’re one of the 8.3% for whom the recession won’t be over til you get a job like the one you lost. In that case, it might as well be 100%.
You could use that argument for ANY unemployment rate.
Didn’t think that the arguing was about the numbers being bad, but why they are, how long we can expect them to stay that way, and how they are currently trending.
There is not sane economist that would blame the high unemployment numbers on the Obama administration.
I would go find a few, but I fear that with your prejudgement you would just consider them insane.
At any rate, the gist would be that certain policies have extended the recession, not so much that they’ve made it deeper.
Some of the policies may have (I’d welcome concrete examples), but the general aim is always to soften the blow for most people.
It’s pretty hard to help efficiently with plummeting income and rabid opponents.
Even saint Ronnie raised taxes when he realized he had to. Obama’s been stuck with trying to go Keynesian without revenue.
During the last bit of it maybe, when information was being with held and falsified to make it seem like nothing bad was going on, however, the Republican Congress were the ones who both made it illegal to regulate Stock Options as well as overriding the bill that prevented the entire mess from ever arising in the first place.
Geary: “Doesn’t really compare to the combined lending, housing, and insurance bubbles that all burst simultaneously at the end of Bush’s term.”
Itsy:”When we had a Democrat Congress.”
in MA we have something called the “lemon law” when you’re buying or selling a car. if it goes for more than $1000 and is not sold for parts (and “does not run” must be part of the deal, which usually reduced below the $1000 mark), the seller is responsible for any repairs that make it uninspectable. in other word, if you find out after you buy it that it has tire damage, bad brakes, and ruined ball joints, you can at minimum get your money back instead of getting hosed. there are even ways of having a mechanic fix those things, then send the bill to the prior owner, though it has to be done through a insurance company and involves a ton of paperwork.
i do so wish our congress had a lemon law. see, it should if the people are honest with themselves and the parties are honest with their constituents. but thinking like the “they at that moment were responsible for years of situations that predicated the actual issue, so they are at fault instead of the people who actually caused the problem!” kind of thinking is dishonest at it core. obama inherited bush’s problems, which started in force when bush had a 3-way majority and the gop did whatever they wanted, then they played hardball with their gains for the next 6 years.
it’s like saying that the guy who catches the grenade thrown at him is attacking someone, because he’s the one holding the weapon when it goes off.
I wouldn’t call it “teeny” we effectively a recession for the first 2-3 years of Bush’s term. And we still have some of the tax credits from that still in effect today.
Might I ask how long it was until there was a steady rate of growth afterwards?
History time:
When the dot-com bubble purely financial burst (with very low unemployment and surpluses), the money that wasn’t returning enough profit on Wall Street rushed into the housing market. Why? Extra-low rates (for that time) courtesy of Greenspan. The markets were kaput? invest in housing! Flip That House!
That recession -which did cost me my job- was a lot less painful because the money flowed where lots of people profited, at least on paper -equity then credit- or by being in the construction business.
The Great Bush Recession on the other end, sent the Wall Street money looking for profits in commodities. Interest rates were already low, and credit was already the problem. Banks stopped lending. Commodities jumped, causing everyone massive inflation pain (the official inflation numbers are clearly oblivious to this). Between bailouts to save jobs, bailouts to save friends, and taxes already at lowest levels in a century, Keynesian policies caused massive amount of debt. People don’t have equity, at least a quarter has negative assets. Low-paying jobs, the easiest ones to prime the employment pump, are still moving overseas. Whiel the US is not Japan, most economists predict it will take at least another 5 years for the average joe to recover, regardless of the current delusions of Wall Street. The scale of the Bush Recession is making a mockery of the expensive-on-paper-but-short Dot-Com bubble.
You know it’s funny. If you examined that history a little bit, it’s like Clinton caused this recession too. What passed in the final months of the Clinton administration? The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which essentially allowed these banks to do what they did that caused the recession. Bush pushed for a bill that would partly reverse or fully reverse that bill sometime in 2006.
Although, it should be noted than the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was passed in the GOP majority house and senate with over 2/3rds support, and congress wasn’t adjourning, so the most preferential outcome would be to not stall it and move on the other issues.
The House vote was a bipartisan vote. Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1
The Senate vote was partisan. 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed
In order for it to be unvetoable by the President, EACH house has to have a 2/3 majority vote. The Senate did not have a 2/3 majority vote. Therefore Bill Clinton could have veto’d the bill. Depending on how long it took Congress to re-vote on the bill Clinton could have pocket veto’d the bill (Christmas Break) or passed off the signing to Bush (or Gore if he won).
Something interesting to note. “During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming “too big to fail.” Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.”
Which makes it funny when Bush went to Congress to get the bill repealed a Democrat controlled Congress didn’t want to do anything.
That one cost my mother half her retirement fund. Not so teeny.
Was she investing half her retirement fund in a new and unstable market?
Some 401k plans tanked I believe. Depends on where the plan was invested etc.
mine increased by 25%. sounds like bad investments.
A lot of investment funds dropped by half… and then climbed back up and beyond where they had been
- Unless you cashed them out when they were at the bottom.
I feel really bad for folks who got stuck drawing from crappy accounts.
I didn’t realize your 401k was equal to all of them.
There’s nothing special about a 401k except the way it’s taxed and the way it’s contributed to. A 401k is extremely similar to a mutual fund, except the employer generally has more control over what options the employee has, at least while the employee is currently employed by the employee.
As with most mutual funds, they have managers. Some managers would have gotten lucky, and some would not have. On the whole, the average would follow the market.
Most 401K’s are kind of a cookie-cutter selection of mild, moderate, or aggressive investment strategies based on how long the employee has to invest before reaching retirement age. During a downturn in the market the most aggressive packages generally lose the largest percentage while the mild packages may lose little to nothing.
This true, but a 401k can also be heavily modified by the employee depending on how the 401k is set up.
I said “some”, not all, not even most. And I said that to explain why imnotreallyhere’s mother might have lost half her retirement fund.
I was actually agreeing with you. The fact that some people with 401′s would only lose a little while others lose a lot just means that the people who lost a lot had a more aggressive investment plan.
Average, at the lowest time, or when sh*t hit the fan?
Compared to the entire Obama presidency? I would take either one!
…I said three. itsy, try reading AND answering next time, instead of doing neither.
Walking and chewing gum isn’t something that everyone can do.
I’m sorry Nailin, that’s a shame. But I bet there’s therapy you can get for that. Good luck!
Ok, I would take all 3.
Would you actually specify those numbers, then?
No.
That bad, eh?
I didn’t like the way you asked me.
MAY you actually specify those numbers, then?
Use Rick Perry math, where you only have to count to two.
for all 8 years? can I live in your little world too, it seems nice and warm and safe with all that denial and nothing to back it up. I love how you went straight to employment as you know the reason for our whole economic crisis started with a republican president. 4% for which year, also, manufacturing a war will increase jobs until it just starts killing people. You can’t really say anything to defend a man who created a war for the hell of it, or rather to get back at Saddam for trying to “kill his daddy.” Obama gets us out of country we had no real reason to be in but like a typical republican, all that matters is money right? not the fact that our troops are coming home and don’t have to spill blood for oil, like the republican overlords had them doing so that great mother Haliburton could continue to give them obscene amounts of money.
Not sure if crazy or stupid….
It’s almost all the false Bush-era generalizations rolled into one. They just forgot to mention him not caring about black people and Cheney’s deal with the devil.
Could you post a transcript? This program is horribad to listen to.
Is that milk in that water cooler?
That is weird…
You just don’t want to listen to it because it hits too close to home. I like how they made the black guy the conservative. It’s very well done.
Oh, so it’s a fantasy, then?
Their pencil necks are scaring me though…
Two questions…
What black guy?
What conservative?
No, it’s the voice. It feels like I’m listening to the text-to-voice translator from Moon Colony, or whatever that old game is called, and it’s trying to talk to me about politics instead of shouting, “HERE COMES ANOTHER CHINESE EARTHQUAKE BRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBR.”
Fun!
what was false? just saying it is wrong doesn’t make it so, can you back that up or are you just mad because i brought that cowboy skeleton out of the closet? life must be awesome when you can just deny facts you don’t like. And its not stupid just because you don’t like it…
I’m not the one making the assertions. Why don’t you show proof for:
1. created a war for:
a. the hell of it (I know you can’t prove this, but you did say it)
b. to get back at Saddam for trying to “kill his daddy.” (Also can’t prove it)
2. Obama gets us out of country (Bush set this up before he left office)
3. don’t have to spill blood for oil (I thought you said it was payback for trying to kill his daddy, why don’t you pick one and stick with it)
4.great mother Haliburton could continue to give them obscene amounts of money (Show me somewhere how much money Halliburton gave Bush or Cheney AFTER Cheney quit working for them and had received the last of his compensation for the work he had done)
2. The Iraqi kicked us out. Process got started by Bush, continued by Obama, but they were hoping to stay longer (permanent bases were on both agendas), the Iraqi denied immunity and we had to leave.
3. You don’t need to pick one. Oil is critically important. Personal reasons of someone involved don’t hurt when it’s time to lie or pull the trigger.
4. Cheney kept a truckload of Halliburton stock when he became VP. The dems called him on it, he essentially told them to go f off. But maybe billions of dollars of no-bid contracts to a company in which you still own tens of millions of dollars of stock is now ethical…
2. Like I said, set up under Bush. Even if we were “kicked out” you didn’t mention that when you tried to give Obama credit for getting us out.
3. You didn’t prove either assertion, you just restated them.
4. You mean the stock that he signed over to charity before he took office? You need to stop reading the Daily KOS and start doing some fact checking. That was debunked in 2004. Go to FactCheck.org to verify.
2. I wasn’t the one talking before
3. “We hold these truth to be self-evident”, remember? While the personal grudge is not proven, the prez was advised by the same people who signed an open letter to Clinton telling him to take down Saddam. They had made their intentions clear before they took office or even went to Afghanistan. The oil needn’t be discussed, the “Saddam want to pay in Euros” was no small factor.
Unless you actually think they believe the WMD story…
4. I hadn’t heard about the charity, learnt something, thanks. It would have helped if he hadn’t just told his detractors to go to hel1. I am surprised, and still wondering how he turned that into a personal profit, so that it would fit his public shameless tough guy persona. Not sure what the Daily KOS is, gotta google it.
2. Yeah, I noticed it was a different person after I responded. Sorry.
3. Basically all we can do is speculate on this. If there were concrete evidence to Bush’s true motives I have a feeling they would have surfaced by now.
4. Glad to help. If you don’t know what the Daily KOS is you are in good shape. Let’s just say it’s a very biased source to get your information from to the point that they make Fox News and MSNBC look middle of the road.
I think that Bush might have actually been convinced by his advisers that Iraq DID have WMDs, and, for better or for worse, he is a very zealous individual.
unemployment that bush inherited was low.
then, his policies and the policies of his neocon command of house, senate, whit house, and conditionally over the supreme court was able to have an effect. what was unemployment the day obama took over?
i’ll assume, given how anti-education and “blargh indoctrination liberal commie homo blargh” you tend to side with, that you don’t know much about physics. there are two terms related to motion that are important. one is how fast you are going right now, or “speed,” and the other i how much faster or slower you are going now than you were, or “acceleration.”
when obama took over, the speed and acceleration o four country’s economic situation were both pretty high. we were shedding jobs like crazy, markets were crashing, and we were in a lot of trouble. obama’s administration managed to slow the acceleration of that nosedive and even us out, then help us start positive acceleration. if you were to graph multiple economic indicators and their change, not just their status at the moment, you’d see that things like the gm bailout were not to immediately fix bush’s economic blunder, but to make sure it didn’t get worse (and a few hundred thousand workers hitting the unemployment lines at once would have been a massive increase in negative acceleration at a time when we were just trying to even out). economists at the time were predicting that we’d see lasting impact from that crisis for a decade, so the fact that many of the markets have rebuilt to the level they have is actually better than expected.
so, to summarize:
your data is crap, and out of context. and it’s typical gop trash to forget to blame bush to try to make obama look bad.
Have you BEEN to Hollywood lately? Ugh!
Only the poor people go there these days. Gross.
[Srsly. Trash on the streets, graffiti on the side streets. The rich beautiful people only go there to have their pictures taken... and even THEN they need to have their make-up staff are nearby.]
I only hope it can be contained.
Isn’t the area this picture was taken a low-income/middle class area?
Shhh. People are trying to score political points on a silly picture website. Srs bsns.
don’t be so literal!
Yes, there are lots and lots of poor people in Hollywood. Some of them even own homes only valued in the upper six figure range.
I didn’t know rich neighborhoods needed to have bars on their windows.
Perhaps that could just use some of your whine.