|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Oct 16, 2008 19:22:04 GMT -5
Under the Bush Administration the banks are being taken over by the government. Good lie. "Taken over by the Government" OMG LOL @ YOU yet again. The US Government is going to invest 250 Billion into SEVERAL banks, buying small percentages, of non-voting stock shares. A FAR FAR Cry from the govt taking over,... |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 16, 2008 19:23:28 GMT -5
And speaking of trickle down effect...
Haven't we been dumped on lately with mountains of excrement. The financial/housing crisis, unemployment, gas prices...
I think the big toilet in the sky has done enough trickling down, something has to change somewhere. If the tax base needs adjusting, well then so be it, the status quo is not working.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 16, 2008 19:52:21 GMT -5
Joe the Plumber better hope Obama gets elected or no one will be able to afford hiring him! Where's the Draino??
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 16, 2008 21:44:23 GMT -5
Under the Bush Administration the banks are being taken over by the government. Isn't that a type of socialism? Obviously deregulation hasn't worked. At the behest of a Democrat controlled Congress busily covering it's ass. Government regulation and policy written and pushed through by Democrats, abetted by "moderate" Repoublicans in the 1990's is what caused it. Government caused it, so now government, apparently, feels the need to fix it. Unfortunately the socialist bailout/rescue/ass covering is (I fear) only going to make things worse. I am so pissed off at Bush and the Republicans for jumping on the bandwagon I could just sh!t, not that it would do any good. They are, in the words of Speaker Gingrich, going along with a most un-Republican solution. There was no "de-regulation". Saying that there was has been debunked, repeatedly and thoroughly, in these pages. You should be smited for continuing to try and run with it, but I don't do that crap. I just call it like it is so that makes you either ignorant or a liar. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and think its the former. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 17, 2008 12:42:11 GMT -5
Under the Bush Administration the banks are being taken over by the government. Isn't that a type of socialism? Obviously deregulation hasn't worked. I had to smite you because you are still putting the blame on Bush for the financial meltdown. He actually warned Congress about a pending problem 17 times during his administration. As I am sure you are aware, the responsibility for our banking system, raising of revenues and financial well being of this country lies with Congress, plain and simple. If you would put as much effort into understanding our Constitution as you do in attacking Republicans and repeating talking points you would understand this. Nothing was done in the last two years to prevent this, nothing. And, if I recall, it has been a Democrat majority in the House. A failed House because they put partisan politics above the people for the last eight years, and the last two years while having the majority they did nothing. But, you give people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi a pass, even though they have shirked their responsibility to the detriment of all the people in this nation. If they are your idea of quality government then we better fold up the tents, because this country is screwed. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 17, 2008 12:45:55 GMT -5
Joe the Plumber better hope Obama gets elected or no one will be able to afford hiring him! Where's the Draino?? Sorry, flip that. Joe the Plumber better hope Obama does not get elected, or the suppliers of his parts will have to charge more money to offset their losses in tax payments. This will mean he will have to raise his prices to his consumers, who are hurting already and will not be able to afford his services any longer. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 17, 2008 12:53:50 GMT -5
Under the Bush Administration the banks are being taken over by the government. Isn't that a type of socialism? Obviously deregulation hasn't worked. I had to smite you because you are still putting the blame on Bush for the financial meltdown. He actually warned Congress about a pending problem 17 times during his administration. Really? Then why didn't anything change during the 6 years Republicans were in control? |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 17, 2008 13:27:41 GMT -5
Really? Then why didn't anything change during the 6 years Republicans were in control?See my posts in here. They speak exactly to your question. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 17, 2008 13:42:20 GMT -5
It seems hard for me to believe that the Republicans in Congress didn't act because they wanted to appease the Democrats if Bush warned them about a pending problem 17 times. There was so much partisanship in Congress at that time (not that it has lessened any) that Bush's wish was Congress' command.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 17, 2008 15:16:16 GMT -5
It seems hard for me to believe that the Republicans in Congress didn't act because they wanted to appease the Democrats if Bush warned them about a pending problem 17 times. There was so much partisanship in Congress at that time (not that it has lessened any) that Bush's wish was Congress' command. Again... your lack of insight into history and how things work in Washington let's you simply believe the talking points. Remember the majoritys were razor thin. Particularly in the Senate. The Republicans didn't act because there weren't enough Democrat votes in committee to bring S.190 out to the floor, so it died. Letting it out on the floor and into the light of day would / could demonstrate that the Democrats who originally ran through the regs in the 90's (Frank, Dodd, etc.) had made a bad mistake with what they forced on Fannie, Freddie and the credit market. Remember two things.... * The one thing no politician wants to ever do is look bad * At the end of the day, all those politicians, regardless of party, use the same restroom, cafeteria, gym, subway, etc. The club protects its members first, again the Senate is a particularly sharp example. It's only when a member steps so far out of bounds that their actions are indefensible that the club will shun them. To this point, despite all the evidence of duplicity and influence peddling by Frank, Dodd and others in the Congress, there have been no hearings to sort out why it happened. Why do you suppose that is? There is, and has not been, nearly the level of partisainship you assert for a long, long time. It would probably surprise you that the late Speaker Tip O'Neill despised President Carter, in part because Carter often snubbed Congressional leadership and was unwilling to break break (or a bottle of booze after hours for that matter) with them. Conversely, Mr. O'Neill had tremendous respect for President Reagan because he actively engaged the Congressional leadership. He had them over to the White House for cocktails when deals needed to be brokered. He was willing to work with the leadership knowing that while he might not get everything he wanted, he could get more with working with the Congress than he could without. Bush has, to a great degree adopted the same philosophy, however his Rockefeller Republicanism (re-made into "compassionate conservatism" you might recall from 2000) has put him largely into the position of dancing to the tune of the Democrats... which is why so many real conservatives (like me) are so utterly pissed at him. We've watched him, and the moderate Republicans in Congress, allow the Democrats to co-opt our message (hence Barack diengenuously promising tax cuts when his plan clearly states he's going to raise them), and marginalize us into minority party status, even when we ostensibly still held the majority. This, in large part, is what the continued reliance by the left here (and elsewhere) on propaganda and talking points as fact in debate has brought us to. What partisainship there is in D.C. is largely for show. The members of the two parties have drifted closer together over time and in many ways are often indistinguishable from each other across a wide spectrum of issues. Combine that with a president eager to make friends and influence people on the Hill and you have the situation we have now. You might remember the "Gang of 14", a group of moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats in the Senate (led in part by John McCain), and how they largely dictated the Senate's course over judicial appointments and other issues for quite some time. All the talk of bi-patisainship is, in reality, largely code speak for the contiuning leftward march of our government and our society. All the sides, in any policital or governing arena, have to at some point come together and make a deal. I maintain that at least some partisainship in getting to the point of a deal isn't a bad thing. We can clearly see the results in our financial markets, credit markets and retirement savings of what kind of damage "bi-partisainship" for the sake of looking bi-partisan can really do. There is little to no accountability. Incumbents protect themselves and get re-elected for term after term no matter how little or how much they really represent their constituencies. This is what has become of American politics. And it has driven our nation to the very brink. The only question that remains is whether we step back from it and rethink how and what it is that our government is doing, or do we jump happily off the cliff cluelessly watching our big screen TVs and wondering whether or not Britney Spears is wearing any underwear. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 17, 2008 17:48:16 GMT -5
It seems hard for me to believe that the Republicans in Congress didn't act because they wanted to appease the Democrats if Bush warned them about a pending problem 17 times. There was so much partisanship in Congress at that time (not that it has lessened any) that Bush's wish was Congress' command. Here, as usual a conservative actually pointing a progressive to where to get the real information. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 17, 2008 17:50:36 GMT -5
Well, exalt number 20 TBD. Good post. I figured exalting you was more productive the smiting saunterelle. You won't whine about an exalt.
|
|
