Perhaps not, but not every news organization in the country is owned by Wall Street. The link you gave was just the word of some guy. Call me jaded, but I'm a little skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge
Printable View
Perhaps not, but not every news organization in the country is owned by Wall Street. The link you gave was just the word of some guy. Call me jaded, but I'm a little skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge
I've come to a point where I can't stand hearing "they're both terrible, I guess we're going to have to go with the lesser evil".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanegashima
It's politicians own fault that Americans have become so pessimistic, but I can't be the only one who thinks that the pessimism is getting a little out of hand. Obama and McCain are both very different from George Bush. One followed his lead in order to get elected, but he ISN'T George W Bush.
And can we throw away the word "liberal"? I still feel than not enough Americans know what it actually means to be a liberal.
Taxes will, if Obama is elected, go up for the top 1% of the nation. The bottom 99% (in other words, all of us) will actually be receiving more back than with McCain's plan.
I hate to get into economics, but sometimes taxes are necessary. When an economy is in shambles, there are three ways to recover: war (which obviously isn't working), larger government regulation, or taxes. Money NEEDS to be pumped into the system. What pays for the roads you drive on? The schools you study in? The transportation that gets you to your job? People never stop complaining about taxes, yet without taxes, where would our country be? We're all in this together.
As for the 700 billion dollar bail out plan, I was disappointed that it failed. I agree that taxpayers shouldn't have to foot Wall Streets bill, but I see it as a necessity. If the bailout plan doesn't happen, then there won't be money for credit lenders, and if credit giving comes to a halt, we're all fucked. Even worse, the only reason it didn't go through was because of the oncoming house elections. Each representative was pandering to his constituency, and ignoring what would actually protect them.
And EDGE, I'm going to have to go with J_Factor. Sometimes we really want to see links and connections and bad practices in politics, enough so that we'll listen to the craziest of crazies. I'm not saying that's the case in this particular situation, but I think calling Obama or McCain a fascist is just laughable. Again, it's a case of being overly-pessimistic.
Just because they are both terrible does not mean you should go with the lesser evil. In 2008 go with the greater evil: Vote Smith.Quote:
Originally Posted by InternalPrimate
The plan failed because most Americans are furious that it was going to happen in the first place. Some representatives were getting at many 50,000 angry calls in this short time about it. I am sure something will get passed. A few reps said it didn't have enough teeth on the section dealing with CEO pay.
The word facist is thrown around far to much. Its not like they are telling us to storm machine gun nest for the greater glory of the state.
I think there is much to be said about taxes that both candidates are not mentioning. 40% of people do not even pay the income tax in this country. I am curious how this will fall into both candidates plans. Does this mean people like me who don't have pot to piss in or a window to throw it out will just a get a bigger tax credit if Obama wins for example?
I am very happy that the bail out failed. Reap what you sow, motherfuckers! No free ticket out! I laugh at them. I bet a bunch of Wall Street types probably committed suicide yesterday. Nobody will miss them, but they missed out on the Iron Man Blu-ray which was released today!
The bail out failed. We're fucked.
any real republican would have been against the bailout, how bush can come up with a hair brained scheme like that and still call himself a republican is a joke.
and on Obama:
I love how obama is always touting how bad the poorest of the poor have it when, the people he mostly talks about don't have to pay federal income taxes, get food benefits, get free state college education for their kids, get subsidized housing. It's a big load and he's full of it. While the middle and upper class foots the bill. How is that fair?
You'd think the democrats would have learned by now that nanny governments don't work.
FDR==New Deal was a failure
LBJ--Great Society: even bigger failure than the New Deal.
Few people would agree that the New Deal and Great Society were failures. Not even just Democrats, few Americans in general. I don't recall Obama saying all that much about the "poorest of the poor"; that was really what John Edwards was campaigning on, not Obama.
Also, there is very little subsidized housing in this country. Not sure where you got that from. The income tax is balanced out by the payroll taxes, which the poor have to pay more than the rich.
The right likes to say that nanny governments don't work, but it's pretty clear that Europe is doing better than us economically. It's arguable why that is, but it ain't because they have more laissez-faire economic policies.
The controls put in place on banks (Glass-Steagall Act) during the FDR era were done away with during the Clinton presidency. Had they been there much of this would have not taken place.
Uh, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal_Sonic
Sometimes my grandma speaks like this: "Why should I pay for welfare for all the lazy illegals?!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanegashima
I shake my head then, and I'll shake my head now. But because I can't find the proper emoticon, here's a little T for you :t:
Yeah, you nailed it. The poor live SOOOOOO much easier than the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InternalPrimate
It aint just about poor and rich, there is a vast middle that no one ever talks about. I never said they had it so much better either, but how does it make sense for 30% of the population that pays no federal income tax to have such a disproportionate amount of the benefits?
Also, regarding subsidized housing...its all over the place in Southern California. It is run by the state, I mean you are from San Francisco right? You should know all about it.
The LA projects are infamous, Jordan Downs is a perfect example. Mayor Villaraigosa wants $5 BILLION more for subsidized housing in LA too...
Also I don't believe in welfare and whatnot, nor do I believe in corporate welfare.
Calling the New Deal a "success" makes no sense considering how much of it was rolled back and reformed under Eisenhower's presidency. Almost none of the New Deal projects that remain in place are even a close approximation of what they were. Also...explain to me why the Tennessee Valley Authority still exists beyond congressman just setting aside money for their locals? It makes no sense.
The New Deal was a dismal failure, at least when it came to lifting American out of the depression...if you look at a graph of the economy of the United States during the depression, FDR's 1935 major leftward shift of his New Deal policies deepened the depression, it didn't lift America out of it.
Also, to quote so many of FDR's critics during the New Deal:
"Why are we paying farmers to destroy crops while people starve? Why is there want in the midst of plenty?"
and don't pull any of this heartless evil libertarian crap on me, because I am heartless and I don't care. so that stuff don't work...
I have 51 cents left in my bank account after paying rent, and -10 dollars in my pocket until I get payed Friday. I owe a ton of money to my brother and I have zero edible food in my kitchen. I get to eat PBJs at work to keep from starving. No way I wanna give these companies a bailout, screw that.
Tanegashima I have to completely disagree with you on FDR's new deal. If the new deal wasn't put in place a lot of people and infrastructure wouldnt be here today. He gave low interest lows to numerous production and infrastructure projects which help us climb out of the Herbert Hoover abyss and thats only 1/10 the things that were saved in the New Deal Era.
Back to the Bailout:
Congratulation Americans, the corrupt corporate state has been dealt a heavy hit from the people of the country.
1. No bailing out cronies on wallstreet (Paulson is still on the CEO Board of Goldman Sachs)
2. The bailout has nothing to do with Mortgages it is all because of derivitives. Derivitives are gambling paper on things that are traded in the market and they are now worth nothing and they want YOU to pay for them. At full price too! Derivitives have a negative value and they want you to buy them back at full price so the scheme can continue.
3. Nationalize the Federal Reserve. Take control of the private bank that loans us our own money AT INTEREST! (Google Video - "The Money Masters")
4. We need New Deal Tactics. Low interest loans to production based manufacturers. We need employment for the 10% of the country thats out of work, we need protective tariffs on our new industrial base, END THE INCOME TAX, and Tax wall street and their speculative paper!
Are you with me! Call Congress NO BAILOUT.
Once again, they pay more payroll tax than the wealthy. The federal income tax is not the only tax; there is no reason to zero in on it as if it existed in a vaccuum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanegashima
First of all, state housing has nothing to do with our discussion of federal policy. Secondly, I stand by my statement that there isn't that much subsidized housing. Jordan Downs is a product of World War II. Extremely little public housing has opened up since the 50s.Quote:
Also, regarding subsidized housing...its all over the place in Southern California. It is run by the state, I mean you are from San Francisco right? You should know all about it.
The LA projects are infamous, Jordan Downs is a perfect example. Mayor Villaraigosa wants $5 BILLION more for subsidized housing in LA too...
You've completely missed the point of the New Deal. It wasn't intended to end the depression in 1935 (nor could any policy have done so).Quote:
Calling the New Deal a "success" makes no sense considering how much of it was rolled back and reformed under Eisenhower's presidency. Almost none of the New Deal projects that remain in place are even a close approximation of what they were. Also...explain to me why the Tennessee Valley Authority still exists beyond congressman just setting aside money for their locals? It makes no sense.
The New Deal was a dismal failure, at least when it came to lifting American out of the depression...if you look at a graph of the economy of the United States during the depression, FDR's 1935 major leftward shift of his New Deal policies deepened the depression, it didn't lift America out of it.
I never said every single aspect of the New Deal was a rousing success, but overall, it has had a beneficial impact. And if we hadn't rolled back the New Deal banking regulations, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.