Socialism

[saunterelle]

Nov 25, 2008 16:05:53 GMT -5 @moondog said:

Nov 24, 2008 20:39:56 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Of course Congress has a part in this too. It just seems like most people posting here blame the Democrats when the Republicans are leading the charge toward socialist "bailout" strategies.

Excuse me?

At this moment, in congress, a greater percentage of Republicans are opposed to the bailout then Democrats. One can easily discern this with a simple review of the subject.

So then, bolverk, lets review the subject. The $700 billion bailout was voted for by Democrats and voted down by Republicans. It wasn't until the bailout got bloated with another $150 billion in pork barrel spending that the Republicans voted for it. Now, who is looking out for American's best interest vs. their own best interests. There's a reason the Democrats now control the House, Senate, and Presidency by a wide margin. The Republicans just couldn't hack it! They sent our country into a tailspin and now the Democrats have to try and clean up their mess.

[moondog]

Please, let's review the $700 billion bailout. Our local congresswoman (Lynn Woolsey, D, Petaluma) and congressman (Mike Thompson, D, St. Helena) both voted against the original bailout and, unless I am mistaken, they are both Democrats. Now, the real kicker here is this, "it wasn't until the bailout got bloated with another $150 billion in pork barrel spending that they voted for it."

So please explain that, if you can. And then if it was bad for Republicans to do it, why are those two still in office? They are guilty of exactly what you claim the Republicans are guilty of. In fact, I am going to see if I can find both voting records to test your claim that it was Republicans who waited for the bill to become bloated. Because in this state, the evidence is pointing in the other direction.

[moondog]

Well saunterelle, according to CNN's Money, you are incorrect about the reasons the plan failed by 18 votes. So far, the Republicans reasons for voting against the bailout were for the following:

One lawmaker who voted against the bill, Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, said the measure would leave a huge burden on taxpayers. "This legislation is giving us a choice between bankrupting our children and bankrupting a few of these big financial institutions on Wall Street that made bad decisions," he said. Culberson voted against the bill.

Other conservative Republicans who voted "no" argued the bill would be a blow against economic freedom.

Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., said the bill posed a choice between the loss of prosperity in the short term or economic freedom in the long term. He said once the federal government enters the financial marketplace, it will not leave. "The choice is stark," he said.

Some Democrats voted against the bill for not doing enough to help taxpayers facing foreclosure or unemployment and accused proponents of moving too fast.

"Like the Iraq war and Patriot Act, this bill is fueled by fear and haste," said Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.

Bailout plan rejected - supporters scramble

[moondog]

Saunterelle, according to CBS, no conservative stronghold by any means, you are incorrect:

CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric interviewed House minority leader Rep. John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio and House majority leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, about why congress failed to pass the bailout.

"Warren Buffett warned, if Congress doesn't act, 'there would be the biggest financial meltdown in American history.' What in the world are you people doing?" Couric asked Boehner.

The minority leader was quick to point out that many Americans are opposed to the bailout and that they are flooding congressional offices with phone calls warning their elected officials not to vote for the proposal.

"I was there on the floor today urging members to support this bill," Boehner said. "But you have to understand, you've got members on both sides of the aisle who are getting thousands of calls from their constituents saying, 'Don't ever vote for this.'"

On the other side of the aisle, Hoyer said Democratic leaders lived up to their end of the bargain and blamed partisan rhetoric for the Republicans' failure to hold up their end.

"Why weren't you able to deliver more Democrats so you could prevent this major failure of American government today?" Couric asked Hoyer.

"We delivered two-thirds of the Democrats for a proposal by the Republican President and the Republican Secretary of Treasury," Hoyer said. "So we think we did our job, and we worked very hard at making sure that we had that two-thirds vote."

House Rejects $700B Bailout Plan

Did you notice how the Democrat, Hoyer, immediately blamed the Republicans for doing what their constituents thought was best? And how they delivered two thirds of the vote for the plan that Americans were against? No other explanations except partisan rhetoric. At least Boehner, who believed in the bailout, answered truthfully.

[moondog]

I was listening to an economist this morning and he was comparing the fall of Rome to our current decline as a civilization. He, like many others believes we are in a similar societal decline. But, unlike most, he was able to put a face on that decline.

The reason Rome declined was that the government was appeasing the wanting citizens who were not a productive part of society. As the number of producers became the minority, the burden of their fiscal responsibilities increased, due to the increasing numbers of the non-productive portion of society. Because of this situation, more people began leaving Rome and seeking prosperity elsewhere. The Roman Senate did not change its ways and eventually Rome fell under the weight of the ever increasing demands of the non-productive.

The exact same thing is happening here, right now. Just look at how our big three auto companies are doing and their unions as well. Not so good at the moment. If those companies fail, the job losses would be catastrophic. But, do you hear the union saying anything about how they would be willing to cut salaries so the companies can stay competitive? Not a word, they are entitled to the compensation they have won and will not sacrifice.

That same economist had an excellent solution for this problem. The government should give the companies to the unions and tell them to sink or float. Then, perhaps, those workers and their unions would wake up to the economic realities they face. Cut costs or lose all your jobs.

[moondog]

Now, lets take a look at that vote.

I can point out right away that the vote was 205 yeas and 228 nays. The break down of yeahs is 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans, the nays were 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats.

Now, if you look at those numbers then you will see that one of the two Representatives lied, by a huge margin. And, it was not Boehner.

Hoyer claimed "We delivered two-thirds of the Democrats for a proposal by the Republican President and the Republican Secretary of Treasury." And further emphasized his point by stating, "So we think we did our job, and we worked very hard at making sure that we had that two-thirds vote."

But, he did not deliver two thirds, or 66.7% of the Democrat vote. He lied, they only delivered 59.6% of the vote and he inflated his number by about 12%.

At least Boehner told the truth and stayed away from partisan rhetoric, which Hoyer was unable to do, even while putting out a lie on what votes he delivered. So, speak to that please, especially since it would have only taken 18 more Democrats to vote for the Bill, a number which neither Hoyer or Pelosi could deliver.

[moondog]

Now comes the real zinger. This one will prove that your argument is not only incorrect, but that it is nothing more then a talking point. And it will all be done by numbers.

In order for your assertion to be correct, one would expect to see a huge exodus of Republican votes in favor of the second bail out. But, that did not occur on the Republican side of the isle.

Here is the vote breakdown on the second version of the bailout, the one you claim was loaded up with pork, the one our two local Representatives switched their votes to support:

Yeas
Democrat: 172
Republican: 91

Nays
Republican: 108
Democrat: 62

Taking the previous vote with less pork in consideration, here are the changes.

A full 34.7% of the Democrats nays turned to yeas when the bill was loaded up with pork. That is more then two thirds of the nay votes that changed.

A paltry 18.8% of the Republicans nays turned to yeas when the bill was loaded up with pork. That is less then one fifth of the nay votes that changed.

Would you kindly explain how your assertion that, "the $700 billion bailout was voted for by Democrats and voted down by Republicans. It wasn't until the bailout got bloated with another $150 billion in pork barrel spending that the Republicans voted for it. Now, who is looking out for American's best interest vs. their own best interests. There's a reason the Democrats now control the House, Senate, and Presidency by a wide margin," is correct, especially in consideration of the exact vote numbers I provided you with.

And yes, there is a reason that the Democrats now control the House, Senate and Presidency, because to many of our non-productive citizens, non-citizens and illegals want their entitlements. I agree we need to help the needy, but at some point, if we fail to increase the productive number of citizens, we will become another Rome.

[The Big Dog]

Nov 24, 2008 20:20:43 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Bush is supposed to LEAD us. He sets our country on a course of action. He came out and asked publicly asked congress to approve the bank bailout. The orders for socialism came directly from the top. It seems like you are the one who is being selective.

And here is where Saunterelle and I converge somewhat.

While I don't assign 100% of the blame for the Wilsonian response on the issue to Bush, he, his administration and a good number of Republicans in Congress bear a good deal of the blame for this mess. Yes the Democrats started it back in the Clinton era (Bill himself now admits it was a huge mistake and rightfully shoulders some of the blame for which I congratulated him), but the Republicans in their bid to out do the Democrats in social largesse as a path to power became very un-Republican and Bush, in the leadership role, has led that charge.

While Bush, McCain and a number of other prominent Republicans were sounding alarm bells over a period of several years they were not ringing them long enough or loud enough. And, truthfully, so long as the real estate bubble kept expanding it wasn't really a problem. When the bubble inevitably contracted, the pinch was widespread and deep because of how deeply all those phoney baloney mortgages had been leveraged.

While I disagree with the entire tone and timbre of the bailout, that it needed to be done at some level as relates to the financial industry seems to be pretty much without question at this point. In that sense Bush's hands were tied and he had to go there. What is unfortunate is that the Congress, along with the administration, opened a door that ever major company with it's financial dick in the grinder is now lining up with their hands out.

The question that the Obama administration, and the next Congress, is likely going to have to solve is where do we draw the line.

[moondog]

I certainly do agree that our country was taken sharply in the wrong direction by Bush, that much is clear. He embraced what the Democrats embrace openly, progressive politics. The one major problem with progressive politics, other then the fact it pushes the center to far to one side, is that it actual rewards the non-productive people in the system. One can see this in the problems we are experiencing right here in this state.

Republicans have been pushing and pushing in this state for a reduction in entitlement spending, year after year for the last three decades. It has not occurred. In fact, entitlement spending was increased exponentially in this state when the Supreme Court said we were not allowed to refuse certain services to illegal immigrants, without the benefit of federal funds, which amounts to an excessive burden on the states. That is exactly the same thing as giving loans to people who can not afford it.

Now, as a result of that ruling, we have nearly 20 million illegals in this nation. One can not be sure of the exact number, as the government always underestimates the count to prevent the public from having the truth and opposing their plans. On the surface, that number may not seem so bad to some, but it devastates our infrastructure to have them.

One major problem, teens can no longer get those fast food jobs they used to get, illegals will take the job for less money and often under the table. The end result is not training the upcoming work force in what is expected of them in order to maintain a job.

Depression of salaries is another outcome. This one is the most difficult to measure, but in construction, a major portion of our economy, illegals are displacing legal workers at ever increasing rates. They are willing to work for less and they don't have to pay union dues. This depresses the earning potential of workers in the construction industry.

So, you have citizens whose wages are lower then they should be or are earning nothing because they have been replaced by a cheaper illegal immigrant.

You have kids who never learn what it is like to enter the work place at a low level, which is an incentive to work harder in school so you can advance to a better paying job. This damages the work ethics of people.

Both are a direct result of socialist thinking, which is doing more harm then good in this world. Bush has certainly embraced some ideas that are socialist at their very core, but why did he do it? Was it in a spirit of cooperation? Or was he dictating to congress?

Bush has indeed made some mistakes. Mostly in economic policy, which really is where the Congress is supposed to do the leading. I believe that the reason our forefathers put the burden of economic policy on the House of Representatives is because there is no possible way one man can have all the answers. Congress certainly proved that by following the Bush plan, rather then putting forth their own well thought out plan.

Bush should have stuck with foreign affairs. And regardless of the opinions you see floating around out there, he actually performed pretty well in that arena. I know no one will give him credit for it, citing that the rest of the world hates us. But what is new, we have always been a nation that was looked down upon by many. When you are successful, that is the way things go.

[jgaffney]

Here's some more information on the bailout bill, from the October 2, 2008 Wall Street Journal:

By a vote of 74-25, the U.S. Senate last night approved a bill aimed at "providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers"--popularly called the bailout.

Or, as it is formally known, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.

When the House rejected the same measure Monday, it was known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The Providence Journal explains what happened:

In part, it has to do with the U.S. Constitution. Article 7, Section 1 says tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives.

In order to improve chances that the bailout bill, which the House defeated on Monday, would be approved this time around, the Senate tacked on several popular provisions, such as extending the life of business tax cuts that were set to expire and changing the alternative minimum tax, a much-loathed part of the tax code intended to ensure that the well-to-do pay their fair share but that in recent years has increasingly affected the middle class.

And an element of the tax package was legislation advanced by [Rhode Island's Rep. Patrick] Kennedy that requires health-insurance companies to offer coverage of mental illness on a par with that of physical illness.

Once the Senate added those provisions to the rescue bill, it qualified as a tax bill, which the upper chamber is constitutionally prohibited from originating.

In order to get around the Constitution, the leaders turned to the time-honored stratagem of finding a live but dormant House bill--Kennedy's mental-health parity bill--to use as a shell.

"They take out the entire text" of Kennedy's old bill, "and then, by amendment, they substitute the other bill," said Don Ritchie, an assistant Senate historian.

So the bailout ended up attached to a measure that extends benefits to people suffering from depression and is named after a lawmaker who died in a crash. Never let it be said that the U.S. Senate lacks a sense of humor.

Uh, lemme see now...... who was running the Senate last October? Wasn't it Dingy Harry Reid? Those wascally Wepublicans did it again!