Yes Krieg, Im sure the big liberal bully demonizing the Tea Baggers. I could go on about how the movments vast majority are white, middle aged, fairly well to do Republicans who want a return to the constitution and the way things were...to take their country back in essence. Now of course a like minded person could never see beyond this, but someone who tries to be open could very much infer this taking back of the country deals with having a black president, immigation issues and minorities gaining more equality (also called reverse discrimination by some people), etc. I dont have a problem with the idea of white pride and wanting the status quo----we have had our run of it for a few hundered years here, and want that to stay the same. But to continue to masquerade the whole movement as one lacking these points and undertones is simply overlooking the obvious.
Im not even going to touch on this thread of (generally) pointless bashing, other than to add the other side of the coin to say......I HATE the (majority) of the Tea Baggers in that new movement of upper middle class whites who are afraid of anything ethic and make all things to be the evils of socialism----except their SS and medicare of course, which are their rights.....There...I said it too.
the left is the only person i have ever heard talk about race in relation to the tea party movement. the tea party movement has black people IN IT. but the left media will not show them.
the movement as a unit is not racist. the movement is for a few simple ideas: limited government and low taxes. this scares the hell out of the statists because tall they know how to do is raise taxes and increase the scope of government.
Yes Krieg, Im sure the big liberal bully demonizing the Tea Baggers. I could go on about how the movments vast majority are white, middle aged, fairly well to do Republicans who want a return to the constitution and the way things were...to take their country back in essence. Now of course a like minded person could never see beyond this, but someone who tries to be open could very much infer this taking back of the country deals with having a black president, immigation issues and minorities gaining more equality (also called reverse discrimination by some people), etc. I dont have a problem with the idea of white pride and wanting the status quo----we have had our run of it for a few hundered years here, and want that to stay the same. But to continue to masquerade the whole movement as one lacking these points and undertones is simply overlooking the obvious.
there you go again, bringing race into it. why. there is no race involved. you are interjecting it. therefor you MUST have race on you mind.
does that make YOU a racist? i cant answer that, i dont know what is in your heart.
Probably do somewhat Kuzi, I think its natural to have biases or feelings----maybe not to the point of being racist.....but sure, maybe I do have race on my mind. However, that doesnt change my feelings about the Tea Baggers, say what you want about the undertones of the movement---but I will have to disagree that race is not a part of it. I too am for smaller govt---AS LONG AS it is good for the people, and I do not think that limiting regulations and tax cuts for all is always for the best.
Right now Democrats are pushing what they call a "financial reform" bill that some say will give large Wall Street firms a virtual green light to make risky investments with the understanding that the government will bail them out if things turn out poorly. Sweet deal, if you can get it ...
this is EXACTLY what happened in the housing market.
You are exactly right, and the Republicans and Bush tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...and were blocked by Slobbering Barny Frank (maybe because his boyfriend was in charge there) and other Dems....but don't expect any mainstream media to point this out.
Right now Democrats are pushing what they call a "financial reform" bill that some say will give large Wall Street firms a virtual green light to make risky investments with the understanding that the government will bail them out if things turn out poorly. Sweet deal, if you can get it ...
this is EXACTLY what happened in the housing market.
You are exactly right, and the Republicans and Bush tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...and were blocked by Slobbering Barny Frank (maybe because his boyfriend was in charge there) and other Dems....but don't expect any mainstream media to point this out.
this is not 100% true. Bush liked at the time that his economy was booming. The American Dream Down Payment Act (2003) was passed under bush, and that contributed significantly to the housing market meltdown.
I'm amazed. Truly amazed, that anyone is capable of caring anymore. We've had what? 50 years of federal incompetence to deal with? 60? I think I am lucky. I am young enough to have never experienced capable government officials. Obama isn't the problem, nor is he the solution.
Every one of those cretins up on the hill are sub-human. The fact of the matter is that 99% of voting Americans pay absolutely no attention to what politicians are actually saying. I would wager that most voters do so on party lines. The Democrats or Republicans could nominate zombie Hitler for President and the sheep would vote for him. The majority of left over voters go with the cool choice. That remaining 1% actually pays attention and makes an informed vote.
Here is the only fact that matters. I makes absolutely no difference who is in office. So long as there is a 2 party system dividing the United States, 50% of people are going to be happy and 50% are going to be pissed off. Meanwhile 100% of the middle class will continue to get **** for generations to come.
Until our government has reason to fear the people, NOTHING will change EVER.
I think this is pretty well stated. I'm also going to attempt to roll it in with some other stuff that's on the thread. As an aside I don't think ALL pols. are sub human, just most. I think you're right that people stick too much to party lines and like you stated, what do you expect with a 2 part system? I also think most people know their party and don't know the other. The two party system also has the negative effect of pushing people to vote against what they don't like in attempt to "block" or "fix" it. Wouldn't it be better if we could decide what we liked most and voted to GET that?
Cabi your point about progressives is taken. Most of the people who would fit the current definition of this label are hard to get behind. That being said; I'm all for progress. I agree with Kuzi that more regulation and taxation won't get you there. What is needed is more encouragement of personal freedom. That's what feeds progress (I'm sure we've all heard the Mead quote).
I support the Tea party on the political agenda they are moving toward (lower taxes / less government). I have not heard/read enough from them about the social agenda that goes with it. If they are working to avoid this type of tie - commendable, but, I haven't heard that FROM THEM either. I do think it is important to see what things will be said BY THEM before judging them as racist or anything else, just keeping an open mind like I would like to see anyone do.
I HATE OBAMA!!! And that's my right, no explanation needed. I have my opinions, but I also have a steadfast rule that I don't argue about politics or religion, for the very reasons ^^^^^^. You won't EVER change anyone's mind.
Wow...I thought the younger generation was the only one looking for instant gratification. Are we having tunnel vision here? Our problems weren't created in one year so how can anyone expect them to be solved in one year. Let's not be so shallow.
I don't think he is ranting about the problems themselves, rather at the President who Cabi feels is doing an inadequate job.
A well thought out point Hawk, I could go on for years about how I believe W Bush is to blame for alot of our woes at this time...and while I will not here, it does good to point out 1 yr doesnt fix 8 years (and decades in some instances) of problems.
A well thought out point Hawk, I could go on for years about how I believe W Bush is to blame for alot of our woes at this time...and while I will not here, it does good to point out 1 yr doesnt fix 8 years (and decades in some instances) of problems.
and doubling down on policies that caused the problems wont fix them either.
Right now Democrats are pushing what they call a "financial reform" bill that some say will give large Wall Street firms a virtual green light to make risky investments with the understanding that the government will bail them out if things turn out poorly. Sweet deal, if you can get it ...
this is EXACTLY what happened in the housing market.
You are exactly right, and the Republicans and Bush tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...and were blocked by Slobbering Barny Frank (maybe because his boyfriend was in charge there) and other Dems....but don't expect any mainstream media to point this out.
this is not 100% true. Bush liked at the time that his economy was booming. The American Dream Down Payment Act (2003) was passed under bush, and that contributed significantly to the housing market meltdown.
True...however, john mccain introduced in 2005 tried enact a bill that would bring some oversight to Fannie and Freddie. But that bill was stopped cold by a Democrat solid party line vote. I am sure the ADDP act did contribute to the mess, but I believe the root cause was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. And who knows...if McCain's bill wasn't stopped, who knows how much of this housing mess would have been stopped and/or fixed.
i cant say that Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was the root cause. the Fair Housing Act (1968), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974),the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975), the National Affordable Housing Act (1990), the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (1994), and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (1994) (in addition to the ones already discussed) all made this crisis happen in their own way. dont forget the fed, the FDIC, Freddie, Fanny, and some actual irresponsible lenders. there is plenty of blame to go around on many sides of this. republicans and democrats alike had their hand in this. it comes down to the government machine intruding in the market.
Hey DK...the money started to leave all of our pockkets way before the Obama administration...look at Enron....profits of the so-called Wall Street crowd...the daily cost of the current war.... these are just a few of the things that have taken money from all of our pockets (except the rich...)
Look at the financial reform being worked on now? I mean I don't get what is so hard about it. It's clear that it needs to be done to safe guard our economy.
its about as clear as mud. when you hold down the banks and financial systems the way they are talking about you hold down the rest of the country because large banks can make large loans. small ones cant. its going to kill the potential for greatness.
phobicsquirrel:
oh and yes the health bill was severely flawed. there's a lot of things I have problems with, a lot.
but most of your problems are that he isnt far enough to the left, and that he has not done enough to regulate everything
i hate that i wake up every day and read the news only to find out another way the Obama administration has violated the rights of the individual
i hate that the only way the Obama administration will ever suggest to "fix" something is to raise taxes and regulate the life out of it.
i hate how the constitution is carted out on patriotic holidays to be a part of a speech but is then quickly shredded behind closed doors.
...i hate that when the Republicans win everything back we will have to worry about our rights still being violated, but in a different way.
I know your all about letting the corporate world do what they do and want without any regulations but that doesn't work kuzi. I agree there can be too much govt involvement but the problem is there needs to be protections against our own interests. If the current mining incident was upheld to regulations that were already put in place then the minors wouldn't have had the devastating disaster. But instead regulations were not enforced. Just like so many other things. The same thing could be said of the BP disaster in the Gulf. The very safeguards that are used and mandated across most of the world aren't enforced here thus once again companies are able to destroy this country and make a buck. Most of the problems in this country are that the big wigs are not held accountable. Going from the president/vice president to large ceo's, hell even senators. But the little guys are always getting busted.
I've often wondered why some are so against govt but so for the private world? Is it not the private world who bankrupt this country? Was it not the private world that raises our oil, and keeps this country from moving forward? Is it not the private world that is pumping all kinds of pills in our throats thus causing massive injury's years down the road? Is it not the private oil companies who cause massive spills and pollute our water? Govt is the only thing that can keep all these things in line. However they are doing a poor poor job of it. This country needs a serious make-over. It would be nice if all of us could work together on it.
Well phobic... I won't argue economic theory with you because it is pretty much pointless, but there is one major statement you made in this post that is 100% factually wrong. The big bad oil company did NOT cause this spill. Do a little research and you will see that BP, who spent the majority of their political dollars on President Obama's campaign, was supposed to have a safety valve that would have prevented this kind of disaster, but they were exempted from this regulation last year by the very administration now blaming them for the whole thing. This was an example of political corruption and lack of action causing this problem. The other safetynet in place was for the government to take action to stop the spread of oil spills with fire booms, which was all layed out in a plan written in 1994. Yet the government failed to act and didn't even check on the availability of these fire booms until 8 days after the accident. This entire thing was a massive government failure.
I didn't know about that puro, but this is what I found on it.. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-idea-that-bp-given-special-exemption-because-of-campaign-cash-to-obama-silly-and-ridiculous.html.. Seems that it all started around 2004, I don't think that this admin was to blame however the lack of oversight very well is to blame. As is BP. I mean the lobbying efforts and money spent is amazingly high. Not to mention why would they spend several million on something if they weren't forced too? However other countries have these laws and enforce them, then again the US does have their hands in Oil's cookie jar.
"Some adminsitration officials got in touch with me about this blog post, to note that the process of BP having received an exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act "is more complicated than the Post story" made it seem.
"There are a lot of layers in the NEPA review process," one administration official said, pointing out that it's a five year process that began for BP in 2004.
In 2004 and 2007 most of the decisions were made regarding the federal government granting the "categorical exclusion."
Then, the official said, "somebody buried deep in MMS made a determination in 2009 that this particular well could qualify for what was already an established routine action."
Officials from the president's Council on Environmental Quality believe that these categorical exclusions may be granted too readily, so in February 2010 they informed agencies "that they need to review how we're issuing categorical exclusions. That guidance is currently out for comment.""
The housing mess....quite honestly there is quite a deep mess associated with the so-called housing issues... check out the book by Michael Lewis, The Big Short "Inside the Doomsday Machine". Very easy to read and quite easy to understand. But be ready to be totally p'od....
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
I know your all about letting the corporate world do what they do and want without any regulations but that doesn't work kuzi.
you always say this and i always correct you. i am not for zero regulation. i am for letting them do what they want AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS THAT is where the regulation comes in. got it? you may say you do, but you always make the same stupid mistake and misrepresent me on every occasion. its disrespectful, annoying, and part of the reason why nobody can cross any isles anymore. wanna talk hate? i HATE that.
phobicsquirrel:
I agree there can be too much govt involvement but the problem is there needs to be protections against our own interests.
protections against self interest? that makes no sense at all. there need to be protections from others violating our rights. it is impossible for me to violate my own rights.
phobicsquirrel:
If the current mining incident was upheld to regulations that were already put in place then the minors wouldn't have had the devastating disaster. But instead regulations were not enforced.
this is 100% true. the mine company violated the rights of the people working there. they should be punished. adding new regulations wont solve the problem, enforcing the regulations that were made to protect the rights of the miners will.
phobicsquirrel:
Just like so many other things. The same thing could be said of the BP disaster in the Gulf. The very safeguards that are used and mandated across most of the world aren't enforced here thus once again companies are able to destroy this country and make a buck.
...and besides Obama waiting many days they are actually holding BP accountable for their actions.
the only thing that i dont like about this is the talk shutting off all drilling in the gulf all together. not every rig is problematic. the disaster rate is way lower than tankers.
phobicsquirrel:
Most of the problems in this country are that the big wigs are not held accountable. Going from the president/vice president to large ceo's, hell even senators. But the little guys are always getting busted.
on the same note, the little guy isnt made accountable for their finances. the government lets them off the hook all the time. that too needs to stop.
phobicsquirrel:
I've often wondered why some are so against govt but so for the private world? Is it not the private world who bankrupt this country?
no. it wanst. ive told you this a hundred times. but i guess i have to tell you again. you have never even been able to make one arguemet against it beyond the talking point of "corporate greed" here we go...
Every housing-related measure taken by Washington has made the standards for homeownership looser than they would be in a free market. Government has stepped in to override private companies aversion to undue risk. Regulators criticized banks for turning down too many mortgage applications. Regulators criticized banks for turning down too many mortgage applications. FNMA and FHLMC were created to encourage the issuance of mortgages that would not be prudent in a free market. The FDIC anesthetizes depositors against risks taken with their funds. And the entire Federal Reserve exists to pump paper money into the economy, and to keep interest rates artificially low--often below the rate of inflation--so that more lending occurs. Yet when this house of cards collapsed, it is capitalism that was denounced, and more government power that was demanded.
Given the broad scope of government intervention in the U.S. home mortgage sector through the GSEs, the maze of other agenciessuch as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB), and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)and the cascade of Congressional actssuch as the Fair Housing Act (1968), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), the Community Reinvestment Act (1977), the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975), the National Affordable Housing Act (1990), the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (1994), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (1994), and the American Dream Down Payment Act (2003)it is simply ludicrous for anyone today to speak of the U.S. mortgage sector as having been a fully free market before the latest crisis. Only more ludicrous is the claim that the few free elements still remaining, but not the interventions, caused the crisis. Armed with its allegedly noble goal of increasing home ownership for the needy, the U.S. government has riddled the mortgage market with perverse incentives and unjust interventions that either compel or induce banks to lend to less-than-creditworthy borrowers, and thus to put themselves at greater risk of insolvency.
if it was not for Fanny and Freddie (government entities) being willing to buy up bad mortgages, the banks would not have taken on so many loans that we as risky as they were. we would not be in this mess now. simple as that.
phobicsquirrel:
Was it not the private world that raises our oil, and keeps this country from moving forward? Is it not the private world that is pumping all kinds of pills in our throats thus causing massive injury's years down the road? Is it not the private oil companies who cause massive spills and pollute our water?
first:
oil is what keeps us moving forward (for now). we still need it. without it we stop moving. when a better technology comes along, THAT will move us. oil is not the enemy, it is our friend. it is what the world uses at this point. we are working on new things that are better, but in the meantime, we need oil and we need it as cheaply as we can get it.
second:
you have a serious misunderstanding of how capitalism and freedom work. those industries exist because there is a demand for them. there is a demand for them because freedom exists. if you take away either end of that, you take away freedom. i cannot violate my own rights, and if i give somebody money for a good or service that you dont like and that hurts me but not you, that is MY problem; it does not belong anyone else. this is what freedom is about. you dont get that.
phobicsquirrel:
Govt is the only thing that can keep all these things in line. However they are doing a poor poor job of it.
they are doing a poor job of it because they cant do it. that is not what government is for.
phobicsquirrel:
This country needs a serious make-over. It would be nice if all of us could work together on it.
it would be nice but you keep saying things like
phobicsquirrel:
I know your all about letting the corporate world do what they do and want without any regulations but that doesn't work kuzi.
...but we already discussed how you twist words to be in favor of more government.
i find it very interesting that you say:
phobicsquirrel:
I agree there can be too much govt
but i have never once seen you argue in the favor of a limited government. you always argue in favor of more regulation, more taxes, more laws and rules, and most of this is not needed.
You know, cutting pasting works so well. Why is it so hard for you to understand that govt isn't the problem is the large institutions that RUN IT! I'll agree with you that yes, govt is to blame for alot of the issues this country currently faces, but only due to the large if not overwhelming influence of large corporate control. This govt is so taken by special interest and lobbying that is it any surprise that everything they pass is to the benefit to large corporate interest? Look at the few bills passed recently, they were littered with special interest wants and needs. It is a handout to them, no doubt. I won't disagree with you and others here. What needs to happen is the money and lobbying needs to be pushed out. Sad thing is, I doubt it will. The money used to buy politics is huge and will get even more so due to the supreme court. I mean hell, what good does it do if the majority of a state or district is for something when their reps don't even need them? Most of the time whoever spends more money wins, and it is so expensive to run for office anyone who is truly doing the right thing and for the good of the country doesn't stand a chance if they don't bend over to special interests. There are a few in congress who are that way, but are far overshadowed. But limiting a govt that can really only stand up to corporations that have grown so big that they can literly kill our economy is very silly, though while the very govt is only looking out for their donors then sure, it's not good either. Smaller govt won't fix any issues, govt has already got smaller in terms of representing we the people. Look in the last 70 years, at how much our economy has changed. Many years ago people had jobs and made a good living but now that is not happening. The wealth of this country has moved so far away from the commons to the elite and now most of us scrape by. Was that govt fault, yes it was due to the special interests and the corporations looking to spend less and make more.
And about powerful companies people getting busted, yes it happens. Enron was a huge one but it's a drop in the bucket, and while the company was dessimated that wasn't enough. All the people they F'd over got nothing, except the shareholders. Blackwater, the FED, BUSH/Cheney, Nixon, GOLDman's... They all have broke the law but what has happened? The huge banks got billions of money with very little if no oversight but hell if auto makers, AMERICAN auto makers need a loan all hell breaks loose. This country has become a country of large corporations and money. And both the 2 parties are in it. That is why there needs to be more parties in the mainstream. I doubt there is much hope for either Dem or Rep parties to really change.
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
You know she's gay right? ...
I know. But I think she's bi when it comes to Obama.
Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
You know she's gay right? ...
I know. But I think she's bi when it comes to Obama.
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
You know she's gay right? ...
I know. But I think she's bi when it comes to Obama.
hehe..
I'm pretty sure Chris Matthews would blow Obama too.
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
You know she's gay right? ...
I know. But I think she's bi when it comes to Obama.
hehe..
I'm pretty sure Chris Matthews would blow Obama too.
Well he does get a thrill up his leg everytime Obama speaks
Hey DK...the money started to leave all of our pockkets way before the Obama administration...look at Enron....profits of the so-called Wall Street crowd...the daily cost of the current war.... these are just a few of the things that have taken money from all of our pockets (except the rich...)
My health insurance premium went up 120 a month after the health bill passed. Why? because the insurance companies are going to have to bulk up their accounts for all the fraud and deadbeats they are about to encounter due to the new law. My taxes are higher than any state in the nation, literally. I know it's easy to blame Enron or War, or Wall Street, or the Rich White People but let me tell you this. I will put it in bold for those just scanning thru here. The owner of my company is wealthy. He lives in the absolute most expensive area in Oregon, Dunthorp. He started his auto dealership from scratch and is now very successful. He paid $244,000 in TAXES last year. When someone tries to trash talk "The evil White Man Tea Baggers" who don't "pay taxes because they are rich" they need to dig a little deeper for accurate information. I am sick and tired of people who make $40k a year with a college education telling me that the rich don't pay taxes or do any good and they are all biggots. It's the same blind discrimination that they claim the White Middle Class has against minorities or our President, or illegal aliens, or whatever the hell they want to blame. Look in a damn mirror for once and take responsibility.
for the record, I don't hate Obama, just his decision making abilities and his House and Senate
Why is it so hard for you to understand that govt isn't the problem is the large institutions that RUN IT!
if the government was doing its job of protecting the rights of the individual then the large corporation COULDN'T run it.
phobicsquirrel:
I'll agree with you that yes, govt is to blame for a lot of the issues this country currently faces, but only due to the large if not overwhelming influence of large corporate control. This govt is so taken by special interest and lobbying that is it any surprise that everything they pass is to the benefit to large corporate interest? Look at the few bills passed recently, they were littered with special interest wants and needs. It is a handout to them, no doubt. I won't disagree with you and others here. What needs to happen is the money and lobbying needs to be pushed out. Sad thing is, I doubt it will. The money used to buy politics is huge and will get even more so due to the supreme court. I mean hell, what good does it do if the majority of a state or district is for something when their reps don't even need them? Most of the time whoever spends more money wins, and it is so expensive to run for office anyone who is truly doing the right thing and for the good of the country doesn't stand a chance if they don't bend over to special interests. There are a few in congress who are that way, but are far overshadowed.
uh... for the most part i agree. entanglement is an issue. get rid of entanglement and get rid of needless regulations (regulations that dont solve problems and dont protect rights, only hinder production, profit, efficiency, etc...)
phobicsquirrel:
But limiting a govt that can really only stand up to corporations that have grown so big that they can literly kill our economy is very silly,
this is an interesting statement. i find it interesting because corporations need a good economy to survive and make money. they have no interest in killing the economy because they would be cutting off their own heads.
phobicsquirrel:
though while the very govt is only looking out for their donors then sure, it's not good either. Smaller govt won't fix any issues, govt has already got smaller in terms of representing we the people.
im not sure what you mean by that. unless you mean that the government, though growing in physical size and cost, has shrank in the amount of good that it enables. if that is what you are saying, then i agree. if that is not what you are saying then you should explain this more.
phobicsquirrel:
Look in the last 70 years, at how much our economy has changed. Many years ago people had jobs and made a good living but now that is not happening. The wealth of this country has moved so far away from the commons to the elite and now most of us scrape by. Was that govt fault, yes it was due to the special interests and the corporations looking to spend less and make more.
i disagree here. yes there are people that are super rich. but even our poor arent that bad off
food for thought:
in the 1950s the upper middle class had no cell phones, no PC's, DVD players, laptops, videogames, Nintendo, Xbox, Wii, CD players, VCR's, portable boomboxes, microwave ovens, digital clocks, cassette decks, cassette players, no cable or satilite. they had one black and white TV that may or may not have a remote control (and if it did you would ahve to have the shades down to use it), one car for a family of four. In 1950, only one percent of U.S. households had air conditioning units. dishes were generally done by hand.
contrast that to today's poor. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher
that doesnt sound much like "scraping by" thats a fairly decent life.
but for arguments sake, lets say you are right about an elite class. what is holding down the lower class? i can make a good argument that the system that our government itself has implimented is holding them down while taking credit for "helping" people that depend on the government tend to stay dependent. they are "rewarded" with bigger checks if they are single mothers. they are "rewarded" with bigger checks if they have more kids they cannot support. the poor conditions, the lack of an example of a good work ethic, and the willingness to accept their conditions makes the poor kids grow up to think its ok to live off the government dole, creating a permanent underclass that will perpetuate government growth, control and spending.
phobicsquirrel:
And about powerful companies people getting busted, yes it happens. Enron was a huge one but it's a drop in the bucket, and while the company was dessimated that wasn't enough.
what do you propose should have happened?
phobicsquirrel:
Blackwater, the FED, BUSH/Cheney, Nixon, GOLDman's... They all have broke the law but what has happened?
Nixon got impeached, goldmans on trial now, the fed IS a huge problem but we cant do anything about it now, Bush/Cheney have had multiple people attempt to bring charges, but they dont seem to stick, and im not exactly sure whats up with goldwater... or even how he has anything to do with this conversation.
phobicsquirrel:
The huge banks got billions of money with very little if no oversight
bailouts they should not have received... just another government mistake.
phobicsquirrel:
but hell if auto makers, AMERICAN auto makers need a loan all hell breaks loose.
... another bailout they should not have had....
phobicsquirrel:
This country has become a country of large corporations and money.
im not convinced that corporations are inherently evil. the concept of a corporation isnt bad. and if the government would actually do its job of protecting the rights of the individual, they wouldnt be a problem ever.
phobicsquirrel:
That is why there needs to be more parties in the mainstream. I doubt there is much hope for either Dem or Rep parties to really change.
i agree with this. this is why i cant bring myself to be a member of either party.
Phobic,
Why do you always point to the corporate influence as a problem with corporations, which you say should be regulated, instead of seeing it as a problem with government, who in all reality should be heavily regulated? The way our government was set up, the government was to have very little power. With the government having little power, there is no reason for a company to invest money in them. The place they would need to invest is with the American people. Then we all benefit!
On the second hand, why regulate business and restrain them from creating wealth, which creates jobs, and improves the lives of people everywhere. Why not regulate government, which can not create wealth, which seldom inspires innovation, which can not grant rights, but can only protect rights, or infringe upon rights, and which has a record of absolute inefficiency? The second choice seems to be the obvious one to grow our nation in every aspect.
Phobic,
Why do you always point to the corporate influence as a problem with corporations, which you say should be regulated, instead of seeing it as a problem with government, who in all reality should be heavily regulated? The way our government was set up, the government was to have very little power. With the government having little power, there is no reason for a company to invest money in them. The place they would need to invest is with the American people. Then we all benefit!
On the second hand, why regulate business and restrain them from creating wealth, which creates jobs, and improves the lives of people everywhere. Why not regulate government, which can not create wealth, which seldom inspires innovation, which can not grant rights, but can only protect rights, or infringe upon rights, and which has a record of absolute inefficiency? The second choice seems to be the obvious one to grow our nation in every aspect.
Comments
the movement as a unit is not racist. the movement is for a few simple ideas: limited government and low taxes.
this scares the hell out of the statists because tall they know how to do is raise taxes and increase the scope of government.
does that make YOU a racist?
i cant answer that, i dont know what is in your heart.
"Long ashes my friends."
I think this is pretty well stated. I'm also going to attempt to roll it in with some other stuff that's on the thread. As an aside I don't think ALL pols. are sub human, just most. I think you're right that people stick too much to party lines and like you stated, what do you expect with a 2 part system? I also think most people know their party and don't know the other. The two party system also has the negative effect of pushing people to vote against what they don't like in attempt to "block" or "fix" it. Wouldn't it be better if we could decide what we liked most and voted to GET that?
Cabi your point about progressives is taken. Most of the people who would fit the current definition of this label are hard to get behind. That being said; I'm all for progress. I agree with Kuzi that more regulation and taxation won't get you there. What is needed is more encouragement of personal freedom. That's what feeds progress (I'm sure we've all heard the Mead quote).
I support the Tea party on the political agenda they are moving toward (lower taxes / less government). I have not heard/read enough from them about the social agenda that goes with it. If they are working to avoid this type of tie - commendable, but, I haven't heard that FROM THEM either. I do think it is important to see what things will be said BY THEM before judging them as racist or anything else, just keeping an open mind like I would like to see anyone do.
But, I had to let cabinet know I was on his side.
"Long ashes my friends."
"Some adminsitration officials got in touch with me about this blog post, to note that the process of BP having received an exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act "is more complicated than the Post story" made it seem. "There are a lot of layers in the NEPA review process," one administration official said, pointing out that it's a five year process that began for BP in 2004. In 2004 and 2007 most of the decisions were made regarding the federal government granting the "categorical exclusion." Then, the official said, "somebody buried deep in MMS made a determination in 2009 that this particular well could qualify for what was already an established routine action." Officials from the president's Council on Environmental Quality believe that these categorical exclusions may be granted too readily, so in February 2010 they informed agencies "that they need to review how we're issuing categorical exclusions. That guidance is currently out for comment.""
Rachel Maddow is a Fred Savage looking, teleprompter reading, pseudo-intellectual-l e s b i a n, that no matter what she says to the contrary, she would drop to her knees and suck Obama off if she ever got the chance......
Aaaaaahhhhh....... that felt good. I need a cigar now.
And about powerful companies people getting busted, yes it happens. Enron was a huge one but it's a drop in the bucket, and while the company was dessimated that wasn't enough. All the people they F'd over got nothing, except the shareholders. Blackwater, the FED, BUSH/Cheney, Nixon, GOLDman's... They all have broke the law but what has happened? The huge banks got billions of money with very little if no oversight but hell if auto makers, AMERICAN auto makers need a loan all hell breaks loose. This country has become a country of large corporations and money. And both the 2 parties are in it. That is why there needs to be more parties in the mainstream. I doubt there is much hope for either Dem or Rep parties to really change.
"Long ashes my friends."
"Long ashes my friends."
for the record, I don't hate Obama, just his decision making abilities and his House and Senate
i find it interesting because corporations need a good economy to survive and make money. they have no interest in killing the economy because they would be cutting off their own heads. im not sure what you mean by that. unless you mean that the government, though growing in physical size and cost, has shrank in the amount of good that it enables. if that is what you are saying, then i agree. if that is not what you are saying then you should explain this more. i disagree here. yes there are people that are super rich.
but even our poor arent that bad off
food for thought:
in the 1950s the upper middle class had no cell phones, no PC's, DVD players, laptops, videogames, Nintendo, Xbox, Wii, CD players, VCR's, portable boomboxes, microwave ovens, digital clocks, cassette decks, cassette players, no cable or satilite. they had one black and white TV that may or may not have a remote control (and if it did you would ahve to have the shades down to use it), one car for a family of four. In 1950, only one percent of U.S. households had air conditioning units. dishes were generally done by hand.
contrast that to today's poor. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher
that doesnt sound much like "scraping by"
thats a fairly decent life.
but for arguments sake, lets say you are right about an elite class. what is holding down the lower class?
i can make a good argument that the system that our government itself has implimented is holding them down while taking credit for "helping"
people that depend on the government tend to stay dependent. they are "rewarded" with bigger checks if they are single mothers. they are "rewarded" with bigger checks if they have more kids they cannot support. the poor conditions, the lack of an example of a good work ethic, and the willingness to accept their conditions makes the poor kids grow up to think its ok to live off the government dole, creating a permanent underclass that will perpetuate government growth, control and spending. what do you propose should have happened? Nixon got impeached, goldmans on trial now, the fed IS a huge problem but we cant do anything about it now, Bush/Cheney have had multiple people attempt to bring charges, but they dont seem to stick, and im not exactly sure whats up with goldwater... or even how he has anything to do with this conversation. bailouts they should not have received... just another government mistake. ... another bailout they should not have had.... im not convinced that corporations are inherently evil. the concept of a corporation isnt bad. and if the government would actually do its job of protecting the rights of the individual, they wouldnt be a problem ever. i agree with this. this is why i cant bring myself to be a member of either party.
Why do you always point to the corporate influence as a problem with corporations, which you say should be regulated, instead of seeing it as a problem with government, who in all reality should be heavily regulated? The way our government was set up, the government was to have very little power. With the government having little power, there is no reason for a company to invest money in them. The place they would need to invest is with the American people. Then we all benefit!
On the second hand, why regulate business and restrain them from creating wealth, which creates jobs, and improves the lives of people everywhere. Why not regulate government, which can not create wealth, which seldom inspires innovation, which can not grant rights, but can only protect rights, or infringe upon rights, and which has a record of absolute inefficiency? The second choice seems to be the obvious one to grow our nation in every aspect.