this is an interesting link...
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...3-62060dcbb3c3
Printable View
this is an interesting link...
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...3-62060dcbb3c3
Of course if Bush hadn't bailed out the banks there would've a huge crash and a world wide run on all banks. That said, the GOP always favors welfare for the rich and the Cheney administration in particular thrilled at doing things secretly.
Correct Trish. There comes a point in a crisis at which even the ideologues have to bow to pragmatic imperatives. Let's just hope for the sake of the US and the wider world that the Republicans accept that remorseless logic instead of forcing their government into default.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Lets hope for the sake of the US that the Tea Party continues to push for a balanced budget with EXTREME caps and reduction in the spending of government. Without it the US will find its self in bankruptcy.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Lets hope for the sake of the US that the Tea Party continues to push for a balanced budget with EXTREME caps and reduction in the spending of government. Without it the US will find its self in bankruptcy.
Faldur, the Tea Party doesnt believe the Federal Government should have a budget at all, and it doesn't understand the concept of balance. It doesn't believe in Federal Government, full stop. If this new movement succeeds in persuading the USA that it is 50 independent states and that the Fed is a monstrosity it doesn't need, then go that way -and become 50 states, some moderately wealthy, most poor. You cannot exist without the investment in your country that WE, the investors of the world provide -the hole you have been digging will indeed look like a grave, deep and cold and unforgiving.
John Boehner may not be a Tea Party cosy, but he refused to answer Obama's calls for most of Friday, an act of infantile petulance unworthy of the Congress of the United States of America. If the majority leader in the House is a spineless coward, how are you going to deal with the scorched earth/Year Zero fanatics who think the Constitition is an a-la-carte menu of individual desire, and nothing else? Or you could just grow up and join us in the real world.
I completely disagree, the Tea Party believes in living within ones means. What you call investment we consider redistribution. I respect your beliefs, but feel they are why we got here in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
It's true, we're in this predicament because of W's money redistribution plan; i.e. pour money into the coffers of the already wealthy and see if they drizzle a little of back to middle and lower income earners. Then start two wars but borrow the money for them, don't pay as you go or ask Americans for any economic sacrifice__if you did they might not re-elect you. Then allow the banks to incentivize the creation of toxic loans, bundle and shuffle them to disguise their toxicity and wait for the bubble to burst. This way those in the know (wallstreet) can scarf up even more redistributed money. The tea baggers are all about voting for milfs, whining about reverse discrimination, hating gays, and anyone concerned about those who don't really belong here. They're the ones bringing guns to public spaces and townhall meetings and compain that they're being held to the too high standards of political correctness. The tea baggers are a bunch of ignorant, anti-science, bible thumping, super-selfish puppets [of puppeteers like] Murdoch and the Koch brothers.
I completely disagree, the Tea Party believes in living within ones means. What you call investment we consider redistribution. I respect your beliefs, but feel they are why we got here in the first place.
Ok I know there is a lot of diversity in the Tea Party, but I do feel they are united by their scepticism of 'Big Government' and when scratched, would prefer little or no government at all. In the capitalist system we live in, investment and distribution, re-investment and re-distribution are part of a never-ending circuit: part of the problem with the framework people are using to analyse current issues, is that they rely on established economic theory, as YodaJazz, Hippifried and others have pointed out before. To take an either/or approach as some Tea Party do becomes: either cuts or oblivion -in spite of the evidence that it won't work in your current situation. Also, my political point was that my money in my bank account is used for investment in other coutries, such as the UK and the USA; and it is now being used to pay off debts in Ireland, and Greece, and a proportion also ends up lubricating the debt-cycle in the USA. We are part of a world economy, and I think John Boehner should be prepared to answer a telephone call, anytime, anywhere, to help the US link in the chain do something to deal with this crisis. Get some leverage first, some kind of platform, sticking plaster or whatever you call it, and then come up with some new solutions, because so far nothing works.
You make sum good points but I highly doubt Faldur, give's a damn what you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The teabaggers have no idea what they want. It'ssad to see so many unwitting dupes.
Again, completely disagree. He makes some very good points, I happen not to agree with them. But I do appreciate the fact he takes the time to share them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
Isnt raising revenue to fund war, living within ones means? The US waged war and cut taxes, for most everone. The stated theory was that it would increase govt revenues. It did not work. The war is part of the total govt debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
Are you saying redistribution is a bad thing? Many studies have stated that the wealthiest are gaining a greater percentage of the total wealth, in recent years. Corporate profits are increasing, but workers salaries are not, even though worker productivity is increasing. That is a form of wealth redistribution. As reported by According to Micheal Cimbalest A chief investment officer at J.P. Morgan Chase, "US labor compensation is at a 50 year low relative to company sales, and US GDP."
Jeez...... how can you be against corporate welfare and suck bankster cock so much? Conflict of interest maybe?Quote:
Of course if Bush hadn't bailed out the banks there would've a huge crash and a world wide run on all banks
There were solvent banks in 2008, just not those that the FED is comprised of. We have a legal mechanism for insolvent corporations. It's called Bankruptcy. The solvent banks come in and pick the bones of the insolvent banks. Why do you prefer taxpayer backed bail-outs?
Inquiring minds want to know.