I don't get what is so hard for some people to understand. If you are in major debt, like we are as a country, you just stop spending so much. And of course Obama says that it is needed spending for jobs and other things, but nothing is happening except a higher debt.
It's not rocket science.
The liberal mind is a confusion warped in a black hole.
They're even touting Detroit as a paradise now.
Example after example of failed "social justice" experiments and they still don't get it.
Speaking of examples. Why can't we just use the current situations in Europe and Canada as a sort of "learning from history" type of thing.
Clearly socialist policies will not work. Capitalism however, has worked, and will always work. Of course there is no perfect capitalist world, but following from history will guide us in the right direction.
People are forgetting what has happened in the past and what exactly we ran away from, when we ran from Britain. Anyone who wants these policies, move to Europe.
Those regulatory agencies are needed to keep the very people who caused the recession from doing the very same thing, which they are...right now, again. Do you not see a problem?
The government caused the recession. I've seen for a while now, lol.
That is partially correct. The government chose to let the investment banks regulate themselves, the SEC got rich and ignored every issue, and the government repealed laws that would have prevented the recession...but the actual work that led to it was done by our mortgage lenders, investment banks and the rating agencies.
And was allowed to happen by our government. The government worries about education, and health care, which Constitutionally it has no authority to finkle with, but it forgets to fulfill it's sole purpose, to protect us from crime.
I love how conservatives make up what they think the 'sole purpose' of government is. Here it is for you. If you don't recognize the source, I suggest you ask a liberal. They can help you.
"We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Oh please, liberals rip that document apart, and when asked about why they don't follow the Constitution, they reply with "are you serious?"
I like it when you post Doug, its a good laugh. Your posts never disprove anything I say, you just blindly argue.
You don't deserve to use any quotes from the Constitution. If it were up to the liberals, it would be burned and re-written.
It's sad, and will go unnoticed, that liberals think the US Constitution was written for ALL the people (check the first three words 'We the People')- and wingnuts (I did not say conservative on purpose - there are plenty of conservatives who understand democracy) - wingnuts don't think liberals 'deserve' to quote the US Constitution. ANd they think the 'people" the US Constitution refers to is RICH PEOPLE!
The nerve of us liberals - trying to expand the guarantees of that document to ALL the people.
Wait, so your logic is yes, the investment banks fleeced the system and virtually attached a vacuum to a funnel to the economy, due to being allowed to by the government, and your solution is that because the government allowed it, that we should forbid the government from being involved? Are you out of your damned mind?
Yes...Republicans in charge from 2000-2008!!!
Acutally, in the senate, Republicans only had a small majority 03, 04 and 05. 2007 and 08 were ruled by Democrats who had majoritys in the house and senate.
That is when we finally started to see reforms come in for the high-way robbery that had been going on!!!
2007 was when they finally started to put a halt to the sub-prime mortgage financial crisis.
I remember it clear as day!
The one who sticks out in my mind is Marcy Kaptor...you-tube some of her speeches from that time....magnifiscant!
The very people who caused the recession? You mean the Federal Reserve and government TARP programs?
Evan - you suggest that TARP was a cause of the recession - but it was passed AFTER the start of the recession - how can it be a cause? But it's worth noting about TARP - and I quote an expert -
"When the $700 billion Troubled Asset Recovery Program started in the fall of 2008, it was widely thought that taxpayers would never see this money repaid. Where do we stand almost 18 months later? Is the government seeing some of this money returned? ...
"Happily the answer is yes. ... Big banks who received the lion’s share of these funds have actually largely repaid those loans, and I should say they have repaid them with interest.
"Many other recipients are beginning to do the same. The estimate now ... is that of that $700 billion, only -- and of course only in quote -- $150 billion will not be prepaid... And so really you have to ask yourself the question, If indeed we do lose -- we taxpayers lose $150 billion -- is that an adequate price to pay for preventing the total collapse of the financial system at the end of 2008. "
The response is from a real economist - Dr. Mike Walden, North Carolina Cooperative Extension economist in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at N.C. State University.
http://www.ncsu.edu/project/calscommblo … yback.html
TAARP is a result of the recession, NOT the cause. Don't be an idiot. The FED allowed it, but didn't cause it. The MEMBERS of the FED, in their relative institutions DID cause it.
"I don't get what is so hard for some people to understand. If you are in major debt, like we are as a country, you just stop spending so much."
Babyface proposes we stop spending as if it's the only option. You can also master your debt by increasing revenue - fair taxes. Or, as the president and democrats are proposing, a combination of both. Wingnuts are not going to come to the table - and that should tell you who to support.
Anyway, please enlighten me as to how the Democrats and the president are proposing a combination of "fair" taxes and increased revenue.
"Second, I continue to oppose the permanent extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year and a more generous estate tax benefiting only the very largest estates. While I had to accept these measures for 2 more years as a part of a compromise that prevented a large tax increase on middle-class families and secured crucial job-creating support for our economy, these policies were unfair and unaffordable when enacted and remain so today. I will push for their expiration in 2012. Moreover, for too long we have tolerated a tax system that’s a complex, inefficient, and loophole-riddled mess. For instance, year after year we go deeper into deficit and debt to pay to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) from hurting many middle-class families. As a start, my Budget proposes a 3-year fix to the AMT that is paid for by an across-theboard 30 percent reduction in itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers... President Barak Obama
Really? So, the three agencies that were absent in their actions to regulate the CDOs, CDSs, and short selling that led to our global economic recession, were just AGAIN defunded, by the very people who chose to defund them originally, Republicans. Get ready. Oh wait, you'll just blame it on the black guy anyway right? Do you care absolutely anything about the economy?
Lmao....please do yourself a favor and educate yourself before you debate something. The republicans never defunded the government. The republicans have the majority of the house, not the senate. Whatever bill the republicans try to pass through the house, will not make it through the senate. So no, Obamacare will not be defunded just yet.
Does this mean you agree with socialized healthcare? You do realize it's been tried in other countries and has failed those countries dont you?
A war tends to scare people and it will cause economic problems. Obama has been in office for over two years now and thats ample time to institute whatever policies he thinks will help, and ample time for those policies to take effect and nothing has happened.
Funding for regulatory agencies don't go through the Senate. Do you know governmental funding procedure at all? Obviously not. These aren't bills dude, these are regarding funding, which is done through the House exclusively. Get a civics text book. Sad.
By the way, none of this has anything to do with Obamacare. Did you even read any of this?
Alrighty, well then...
"After four days of marathon, near-round-the-clock sessions, the House of Representatives finally approved a bill to run the federal government through the fall and slash more than $60 billion in spending." - http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/ … nding-bill
It's crazy I have to do this, but I suppose there are complete morons out there. Hopefully your just making a mistake.
Now that we know this IS a bill,
"Among those cuts: a ban on federal funding for Planned Parenthood, reductions in job training programs and several government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service."
Really read this next one...
"The bill also prohibits the funding of the new health care reform law."
That's Obamacare duuude.....
Oh yes, forgot this one, which if you go to the link you can read for yourself, but since I never visit links people send me, here...
"The health care cuts appear to be a non-starter in the Democratic-led Senate, stoking talk of a government shutdown if both chambers can't agree on a compromise before the current spending bill expires next month."
The post was about the de-funding of financial regulatory agencies and you want to talk about Obamacare. Ridiculous
De-funding those agencies are not a part of the budget. Just because they both deal with numbers, DOESN'T mean they are the same thing. Are you 10?
I'm actually lost. Your argument doesn't really make any sense. Were talking about a bill that is being passed by through to the senate.
You said that it doesnt get passed through to the senate but it does. The title of this thread has to do with the de-funding bill.
You said it wasnt a bill, but we've determained it is indeed a bill and will go to senate.
I was commenting on the fact that part of the bill, includes de-funding the new health care reform. AKA "Obamacare".
I'm not 10, but I guess if I'm the only one who has no idea what the hell you are talking about with your last post, I'm a complete moron, lol.
I think you've been showed up, and the only way you can deal with it is to throw out random words hoping to make yourself look good. Give it up, your wrong, plain and simple. Maybe you were not sure of the topic, but the thread is about the new bill that is being passed through to the senate where it will more than likely be shut down. Which brings us back to the comment you originally commented on.
Have a good one, I'm not wasting anymore time on you.
Maybe the politicians should work for free.
That should reduce the deficit.
The GOP is working entirely for the rich. The result is a deficit which is more the result of a loss of REVENUE than excess spending. As the rich get more and more control of government, their taxes will go down, the deficit will increase. Cut business and megabuck funding of campaigns - make elections the sole property of the people - and you will see a repair of the deficit and debt.
"Like all states, Arizona is facing hard financial times, but this is a question of priorities. Brewer eagerly signed tax cuts for businesses into law last week — cuts that will cost Arizona $538 million by 2018."
meanwhile, more people face death while awaiting transplants....
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/19/bre … ransplant/
Profits Over People....POP. Goes Scamerica.
>see you tomorrow<
good sunday evnin to ya
Yes, and the tax-cut for uber-wealthy should be rescinded.
That would reduce the deficit too.
And the cap on FICA should be thrown out the window.
And wealth should be taxed the same as labor.
Many things would reduce the deficit...but it's all about politics and ideology, not common sense.
If we hadn't spent billions on Global Warming, which it's funny how the media is not covering it all now, it's like it never happened once it was proven to be a fraud, but if that money had not been spent, it would look better than it does.
If global warming is a fraud, have the polar ice caps been restored?
There are almost no glaciers left at Glacier National Park.
The ability of wingnuts to make wild claims which are contradicted by the most casual examination of facts knows no bounds.
I love this.
The polar ice caps have been melting for decades and they do re-freeze and they have and the pretty polar bears are not loosing hunting grounds. Where are you getting your facts...well not facts, information?
"Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming." - http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/ … polar-ice/
"The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his “Inconvenient Truth” lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.
Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years"
There are gains in not only polar bear population, but ice itself. Get over yourself.
Just a typical liberal
The "ubber rich" pay over 50% of the taxes.....They make up 2% of the population.
Yeah..it's disgusting that 2% of the population has over 50% of the wealth!
why is that disgusting?
Warren buffet DESERVES my money (that is, when I buy stuff from him), Bill Gates DESERVES my money (when i buy computers from him), Steve Jobs DESERVES my money (when I buy iPods, etc).
People who make money are people who create wealth, government excluded.
Evan its a loosing battle. I'm not even paying lovemychris much mind. It's clear she's blindly following her liberal elites and not really doing any research herself.
Just because they pay 50% of the taxes, means nothing about the amount of wealth they have.
You really are an idiot.....wow
I don't know any liberal elites, and I have done so much research it hurts.
But the best and simplest way is to LOOK AROUND ME.
WHO has benefitted from the Republican gvt? Not me....I went into poverty with Bush.
Obama gave me a tax cut.....$400.00 work credit.
1st pres EVER to consider my low income.
And hello...who pays income tax? Those with income to pay it.
IF they are paying OVER 50% of the taxes, that mean they have OVER 50% of the income.
"You really are an idiot.....wow"--this is why I pay YOU no never-mind. And take a lesson from it...in the last few days, I have read all the crying from righty's about "all liberals do is insult"....
well take a look in the Big Mirror.....
Or don't dish it out, if you can't take it!
...and THOSE people are the ones who invented CDOs, CDWs, and derivatives, along with the plan to pass along ALL risk involved to investors like pensions funds, while bribing rating agencies to lie to you and I about their risk, making them triple A ratings. SO, those people essentially took your money, passed the risk down the line, and enacted HUGE financial transactions fees and fake financial instruments along the chain. Nothing was created except an infrastructure that based its earnings and quantity of transactions.
BTW, Evan - Bill Gates doesn't make computers - never has.
Almost every computer comes with Windoes though, lol.
Your right chris. That was a little much. The top 2% do not make up 50% of the money in this country. This country is in debt, badly. I guess it's easy to argue your side regardless of what side you are on, but you should really understand that the top 2% worked for that money. They didn't just steal it. They are small business owners who keep the country alive.
By liberal elites I meant Obama and his administration and if you went into poverty under Bush, it was not Bush's fault. He had unemployment numbers lower than any president in the past 60 years. It's easy to blame him, but a little harder to accept the truth that Obama is at fault now. Bush is gone and has been for a couple of years. Theres enough time here to fix any so called problems.
Everyone should be paying income tax, everyone who earns money and makes over 10,000 a year, but a lot of people don't, and the because of this, the top 2% pay a much higher percentage. It has nothing to do with how much money they make, they shouldn't be forced to give the majority of it away when, people who settle for jobs at McDonald's pay a tiny percentage and keep the majority of their check.
It's easy to say the rich deserve it because they have so much more money, but I grew up poor and still struggle to support my family and the fault is mine for not going to college and bettering my situation. Those people worked and are working for what they have. This country offers the pursuit of happieness, not a guaranteed level playing field.
In every part of history, when people let capitalism run its course, things magically get better. Call it what you want, but I know without a doubt that theres only one way out of this mess, and it is not the "progressive" policies this administration is instituting.
But again, "idiot" was a little harsh and sorry about that. I like the debates on here, and I get heated sometimes and say cruel shit.
What! Bill Gates, Donald Trump et al are all small business owners, well I'll be blowed.
Actually, the top 2% hold more than 50% of the wealth in the country. Did you even look that up before writing that whole post? Do you put any effort into this at all? Ridiculous
Ah, if only things were only as black and white as simpletons who think one party or the other is pefect.
Guess what? It is not. There are many more things that the government could cut, but many of them are supported by people on either side of the isle.
Think about it. You say you want federal spending cut. On your local level though there is some federal money supporting some clean up program, etc you think is great and which you voted your current congress person in to office to fight for. You essentially expect them to support things at the local level, while fighting the local level programs all the other people's representatives are trying to support. I read this somewhere and I am sure it was written better than what I just stated, but you get the point.
That is essentially a major flaw in the system.
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
Wish I could say this is a David Letterman "top 10" list. Pick one, pick them all.It's not just the proposed cuts in funding, it's (in some cases) the rationale behind these bills that makes me wonder. Is this 2011 or 1951?Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War 1) Republicans not only...
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security has so far been untouched. That may soon change.Today's Editorials"In last...
by Alex Frias 7 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush tax cuts 6 months ago, or even 2 years ago..?Yes Obama has always maintained...
by Jack Lee 12 months ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
by SheriSapp 2 years ago
Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?Why do the liberals REFUSE to understand that the deficit spending MUST be stopped or the nation will become premanently bankrupt?
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today 1-5-08 is entitled "Fighting Off Depression." In it he called the recent economic numbers "terrifying," not just in the U.S. but around the world. Manufacturing in particular is plunging everywhere; banks aren't lending; businesses and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|