Perchoutofwater Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The government today announced it was changing the national symbol to a condom because it more accurately reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you are actually being screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 .......wait Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Oven Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The government today announced it was changing the national symbol to a condom because it more accurately reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you are actually being screwed. So, bottom line is you like it in the kiester? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 So, bottom line is you like it in the kiester? Nope bottom line is we are all going to get it in the kiester, well at least the 60% of the voting public that actually pays taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 No that was the Bush economy mascot instead. It's an easy mistake to make as we're still taking in the rear from W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 No that was the Bush economy mascot instead. It's an easy mistake to make as we're still taking in the rear from W. Yep Bush received all that money form Freddie an Fannie, and he is the one that pushed for mark to market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Nope bottom line is we are all going to get it in the kiester, well at least the (by that time) 40% of the voting public that actually pays taxes. Fixed for accuracy. Edited February 17, 2009 by westvirginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Yep Bush received all that money form Freddie an Fannie, and he is the one that pushed for mark to market. And for the 3 trillion dollar liberation of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 I swear I just heard a barking spider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Yep Bush received all that money form Freddie an Fannie, and he is the one that pushed for mark to market. Actually, mark to market was a good thing...but had unintended consequences...such as the case is when we fast foward to now. If mark to market was such a bad thing, then the republican controlled congress and republican president could have repealed it. It was enacted in 1993..as I remember...and was enacted so firms could value securities held or traded at broker dealers...stuff used as collateral. The unintended consequence of this was how the banks had to write down assets on the books...that even though were being paid....still no paper was worth less if sold. This problem had a lot to do with CDO's and mortgages funding them. The benefit of mark to market is that it allows the FDIC to come in a rescue a failed institution before it hits absolute zero...the problem I have with that is given enough time, the likelihood is that the institution would have recovered on its own. So, it is a double edge sword. I would blame the Clinton Treasury Secretary for not giving guidance to Tax courts while also blaming the Congress for not repealing this when the unintended consequence came up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I swear I just heard a barking spider. Step on it quick!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The Women in California are single handedly saving the next generation without condoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Will there be a horse to greet the Trojan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Yep Bush received all that money form Freddie an Fannie, and he is the one that pushed for mark to market. Bush was a hugh advocate for the housing burst to low income applicants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Yep Bush received all that money form Freddie an Fannie, and he is the one that pushed for mark to market. Naah he just schtuped the middle class so robber barons could keep more of their money. In reality it was a re-writing of tax laws disguised as a jobs program. I don't mind changing the tax code but don't lie about it-sell it for what it really is and let the voters or their reps decide. It wasn't a jobs program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.