Kevin Lane
-
The Basics
-
Kevin on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article NASA: Why The World Won't End on Friday
-
On the article Two Men Beat Victim With Metal Bars, Deputy Says
Kevin Lane
3:32 pm on Monday, October 15, 2012
ReplyIf anyone deserved a beating, it was these guys' barber.
-
On the article Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November
Kevin Lane
2:22 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Sensible,
Are you aware that "our founding principals" were based on a Christian religion?
You're lost. The only thing more frightening than Akin is his opponent & the status quo. -
On the article Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November
Kevin Lane
2:17 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
You don't ask for a level playing field, if you did you wouldn't be against a flat-tax, and for going after the rich, besides, all of you defended these same activities 4 years ago.
Also, just because we all agree to pay for those things doesn't mean we should continue to do it the wrong way. It's cheaper in every way to let the states & municipalities handle some of these things, which means MORE money would actually get where it is going, instead of to a Federal government that is wasteful, irresponsible, and too far removed from ALL of these situations to even understand them.
I thought you hadn't seen Romney's tax-returns, you speak as if you have. If he created a false birth... oops, I mean tax-return, would you be as willing to defend it as you are a Hawaiian birth-certificate that doesn't match others issued during the same time-period?
His returns don't even matter to you. You just want to distract from what the greediest & most wasteful Fed ever does with OUR money, by trying to say that Romney should allow them to waste whatever they want of HIS.
Look at what Romney does with his money, not what we do with yours.
Hook, Line, & Sinker -
On the article Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November
Kevin Lane
2:08 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
No ma'am,
One war, the second was entered into by this administration.
Trying to argue that the government & their expenditures are smaller than they were is right around 180 degrees wrong, and there are endless examples of it. Likely information you got from a biased media, (a trait you attempted to assign to me, as I was trying explain that bias to you). Taxes are at a low, because you can't continue to drive businesses away & expect to collect more taxes. Businesses pay more taxes than their employees, thanks to the Dems, you now have fewer of both. You can try to blame the previous administration if you want, but again, you don't understand the actual events or the effects of them. Remember, many of the efforts by the previous administration, were attempts to turn aroun the effects of the administration previous to that, when the tax-increases & attacks on business & your home began. Unless you understand the Fair Housing Regulatory Act & the effects of it, including changing banking laws to allow those worthless loans to be bundled & sold back to tax payers as if they were worth something other than the cost of the paper they were printed on, then you don't understand what actually happened. If you don't know who Franklin Raines or Ofeo is, then you are exactly as good as those who fed you that information. It was not Bush who bet your homes, lost the bet, then made you buy those losses. -
On the article Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November
Kevin Lane
2:04 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Collin,
As I've explained, when you reduce by large number the amount of businesses, of course those who remain will show more profit. It's misleading. You could achieve the same results by creating a Monopoly. It isn't more business. It isn't more profit. It's fewer businesses accepting what's left of the money being spent.
There was nothing DE-regulatory about Fair Housing. Regulatory is even in the name for crying out loud. It FORCED banks to loan money that everyone new they would never get back. It caused creativity in the market, it didn't deregulate it. Did it also de-regulate Franklin Raines from making off with over $900 million in tax-payer dollars?
You're right, the government didn't invent B, C, or even D loans, they FORCED them. The quote "unprecedented practices and profits" was in response to taxpayers covering the losses created by this un-wise wager, and the result of much of their banking competition going out of business due to this tragedy. (Bear Stearnes) Also, it's odd that those were some of the Banks whose underwriters were those that were bailed-out. (Goldmann-Sachs)
What's also not incorrect is that one side tried to stop it, tried to regulate Fanny & Freddy, while the Dems that were cashing-in laughed at the very suggestion of a need for actual regulation. Ever hear of Ofeo?
I'd love to show you the C-Span footage of this happening, but it wouldn't matter any more to you than any other actual facts do. But you are welcome to it. -
On the article Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November
Kevin Lane
1:59 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Collin,
As I've explained, when you reduce by large number the amount of businesses, of course those who remain will show more profit. It's misleading. You could achieve the same results by creating a Monopoly. It isn't more business. It isn't more profit. It's fewer businesses accepting what's left of the money being spent.
There was nothing DE-regulatory about Fair Housing. Regulatory is even in the name for crying out loud. It FORCED banks to loan money everyone new they would never get back. It caused creativity in the market, it didn't deregulate it. Did it also de-regulate Franklin Raines from making off with over $900 million in tax-payer dollars?
You're right, the government didn't invent B, C, or even D loans, they FORCED them. The quote "unprecedented practices and profits" was in response to taxpayers covering the losses created by this un-wise wager, and the result of much of their banking competition going out of business due to this tragedy. (Bear Stearnes) Also, it's odd that those were some of the Banks whose underwriters were those that were bailed-out. (Goldmann-Sachs)
What's also not incorrect is that one side tried to stop it, tried to regulate Fanny & Freddy, while the Dems that were cashing-in laughed at the very suggestion of a need for actual regulation. Ever hear of Ofeo?
I'd love to show you the C-Span footage of this happening, but it wouldn't matter any more to you than any other actual facts do. But you are welcome to it. -
On the article Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November
Kevin Lane
1:56 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Collin,
As I've explained, when you reduce by large number the amount of businesses, of course those who remain will show more profit. It's misleading. You could achieve the same results by creating a Monopoly. It isn't more business. It isn't more profit. It's fewer businesses accepting what's left of the money being spent.
There was nothing DE-regulatory about Fair Housing. Regulatory is even in the name for crying out loud. It FORCED banks to loan money everyone new they would never get back. It caused creativity in the market, it didn't deregulate it. Did it also de-regulate Franklin Raines from making off with over $900 million in tax-payer dollars?
You're right, the government didn't invent B, C, or even D loans, they FORCED them. The quote "unprecedented practices and profits" was in response to taxpayers covering the losses created by this un-wise wager. Also, it's odd that those were some of the Banks whose underwriters were those that were bailed-out.
What's also not incorrect is that one side tried to stop it, tried to regulate Fanny & Freddy, while the Dems that were cashing-in laughed at the very suggestion of a need for actual regulation. Ever hear of Ofeo?
I'd love to show you the C-Span footage of this happening, but it wouldn't matter any more to you than any other actual facts do. But you are welcome to it. -
On the article Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November
Kevin Lane
1:54 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Collin,
As I've explained, when you reduce by large number the amount of businesses, of course those who remain will show more profit. It's misleading. You could achieve the same results by creating a Monopoly. It isn't more business. It isn't more profit. It's fewer businesses accepting what's left of the money being spent.
There was nothing DE-regulatory about Fair Housing. Regulatory is even in the name for crying out loud. It FORCED banks to loan money everyone new they would never get back. It caused creativity in the market, it didn't deregulate it. Did it also de-regualte Franklin Raines from making off with over $900 million in tax-payer dollars?
You're right, the government didn't invent B, C, or even D loans, they FORCED them. The quote "unprecedented practices and profits" was in response to taxpayers covering the losses created by this un-wise wager. Also, it's odd that those were some of the Banks whose underwriters were those that were bailed-out.
What's also not incorrect is that one side tried to stop it, tried to regulate Fanny & Freddy, while the Dems that were cashing-in laughed at the very suggestion of a need for actual regulation. Ever hear of Ofeo?
I'd love to show you the C-Span footage of this happening, but it wouldn't matter any more to you than any other actual facts do. But you are welcome to it. -
On the article Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November
Kevin Lane
1:52 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Collin,
As I've explained, when you reduce by large number the amount of businesses, of course those who remain will show more profit. It's misleading. You could achieve the same results by creating a Monopoly. It isn't more business. It isn't more profit. It's fewer businesses accepting what's left of the money being spent.
There was nothing DE-regulatory about Fair Housing. Regulatory is even in the name for crying out loud. It FORCED banks to loan money everyone new they would never get back. It caused creativity in the market, it didn't deregulate it. It also de-regualte Franklin Raines from making off with over $900 million in tax-payer dollars. You're right, the government didn't invent B & C loans, they FORCED them. The quote "unprecedented practices and profits" was in response to taxpayers covering the debt created by this un-wise wager. Also, it's odd that those were some of the Banks whose underwriters were those that were bailed-out.
What's also not incorrect is that one side tried to stop it, tried to regulate Fanny & Freddy, while the Dems that were cashing-in laughed at the very suggestion of a need for actual regulation. Ever hear of Ofeo?
I'd love to show you the C-Span footage of this happening, but it wouldn't matter any more to you than any other actual facts do. But you are welcome to it.
Kevin Lane
10:33 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Let's revisit this in 3 to 3.7 years, the difference between the Mayan calendar & the Gregorian calendar we now use. For now, line toted.