World Politics

Page 40 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
For the last time, capital gains put more capital in the hands of those in a position to create jobs. Capital gains effects a lot more than stock trasactions. Expansion of business, starting new ones...
Yada yada yada. This sounds just like that old fool Orin Hatch last summer. He was on cable TV telling the country that if we cut the capital gains tax then the economy would "take off like a rocket." Of course the leader of his party was at the same time telling us that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. The average junkie whacked out of his mind on meth had a better understanding of the country's situation than those two doddering fossils.

Cutting the capital gains tax has always been nothing more than welfare for the rich. There is no reason why money earned by actual work should be taxed at a higher rate than money earned by buying stock. The jobs creation is just a cover story, much like Bush's Iraqi WMDs. If society's goal is to create jobs through investment then actual achievement of that goal should be specifically targeted for tax incentives. Buying existing shares in an company and selling them a year later does nothing for job creation. It has no effect on the company whatsoever.

Scott SoCal said:
The stimulus has not worked has it? $787bn. The White House has had to invent a term never before heard... 'saved job'. It's insulting.
Who says it has not worked? Things take time. Much of the spending has been designed to prevent us from spiraling into the abyss. It is impossible to say what might have happened if we had done nothing. The conservative solution to the economy is to stand around, do nothing, let the roof cave in on us, and hope the country does not tumble into Depression, version 2.0. That is not exactly reassuring, especially since these same so-called conservatives spent like drunken Kennedys while the economy was good, turned the surplus into a deficit, and left us in a position where necessary stimulus spending puts the country under tremondous strain.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Riley Martin said:
Regan was a movie star hack! After that fool became president Terrorism jumped to an all time high. Regan protected the Shah of Iran and gave him “cancer treatment” / refuge here in America. Then the students revolted and took our Hostages.
There were countless terrorism attacks and Hijackings against us when that guy was president.

Don’t forget when Regan started that stupid campaign about buying foreign made products! He practically crippled the US economy all by himself. If it was not for Jimmy Carter this country would have been embarrassed to call itself the USA.
Donald Regan was Secretary of Treasury and Chief of Staff for Reagan. Regan was and did none of the things you attribute to him.
 
Jul 22, 2009
302
0
0
Riley Martin said:
This is true. Iraq never ever had any chemical weapons. That was just propaganda created under the first Bad Bush.

Clinton kept it going because he had to stop the crazy bombing Christians from finding that blue dress with the gakk on it.
there was ample evidence and reports of saddam using vx gas against villiages in iraq and in the conflict against iran. if saddam destroyed or used up those weapons he let on that he had them in order to threaten others. In light of the 911 attacks and the subsequent threat posed by iraq ( who continued to play games with the un inspectors ) the invasion of iraq seemed like a reasonable decision to many. evertything in context. there were expatriot iraqis begging the states to help them overthrow saddam. etc. I don't really think W had the intelligence to scheme a master-plan as some conspiracy proponients allege. never-the-less, it is meaningless to argue the justifications for the invasion of iraq- the fact is we are there now, we cannot just pull out overnight on a whim- there are important consequences to be considered prior to any action.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Laszlo said:
there was ample evidence and reports of saddam using vx gas against villiages in iraq and in the conflict against iran. if saddam destroyed or used up those weapons he let on that he had them in order to threaten others. In light of the 911 attacks and the subsequent threat posed by iraq ( who continued to play games with the un inspectors ) the invasion of iraq seemed like a reasonable decision to many. evertything in context. there were expatriot iraqis begging the states to help them overthrow saddam. etc. I don't really think W had the intelligence to scheme a master-plan as some conspiracy proponients allege. never-the-less, it is meaningless to argue the justifications for the invasion of iraq- the fact is we are there now, we cannot just pull out overnight on a whim- there are important consequences to be considered prior to any action.
I say we take a poll. All the conservatives who say they support the war in Iraq get entered into a special draft. We randomly select a hundred thousand of these chicken hawks from the right, put them into Iraq, and see how quick their support for the war erodes.

We could fund the war in a similar way. Everyone who supports the war gets a monthly bill. With forty million conservatives supporting the war and a monthly cost of, say, $15B each of them will get a bill for $375 every month.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
buckwheat said:
Security is the foundation of civilization? What, are we all living in, Police States?

Didn't we (the U.S.) decide to have government in order to form a more perfect Union? to establish Justice? Insure domestic tranquility? Provide for the Common Defense? Promote the General Welfare? Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity?

What was it that Franklin said about those who would sacrifice liberty for Security?

You should really take a citizenship class.
It might help to know a little history. The United States did not start with the constitution, we had a much weaker form of government and the concern was that it would not be sufficient to protect our citizens from the British (and any other foreign power) as well as from each other. OUr government was originally formed under the Articles of Confederation. Our currrent Constitution replaced the Articles of Federation.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
BroDeal said:
Bigots should be called exactly what they are. They should not be allowed to hide under the cover of euphemism or to think that people will be too polite to call them on their vile views.
Would this apply to the bigots on the left as well???
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
BroDeal said:
Who says it has not worked? Things take time. Much of the spending has been designed to prevent us from spiraling into the abyss.
Things do take time - the interest payments are going to start really hurting in about two years.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
It might help to know a little history. The United States did not start with the constitution, we had a much weaker form of government and the concern was that it would not be sufficient to protect our citizens from the British (and any other foreign power) as well as from each other. OUr government was originally formed under the Articles of Confederation. Our currrent Constitution replaced the Articles of Federation.
Don't be disingenuous, the Articles of Confederation provided for common defense, but that was not the only reason for instituting them. I am a bit rusty considering I studied that 15 years ago, but the debate regarding them and how they should be incorporated or not into the Constitution was a very economic discussion in many ways.

Secondly, this is always pointed to in relation to the idea of "General Welfare" and the proposition that social programs are not constitutional. I always laugh pretty hard when I hear that argument from anyone other than a Federal Judge considering that Article III clearly states that the ONLY entity in the whole of our country charged with determining what is and what is not constitutional are the Federal Courts. I absolutely love answering the question "Show me where in the constitution it provides for Health Care." I always answer the correct answer "Article III Section II."
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
Things do take time - the interest payments are going to start really hurting in about two years.
We cut the defense budget to $100B, stop both useless wars, and chop the intelligence agencies' budgets by 75%. Problem solved.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
Take a look at this and get back to me on the method of making the payments:
Add up the defense budget, the war budget, and the intelligence budgets, compare it to $700B, and then get back to me.

Ya gotta love how concerned all the fiscal conservatives are about the debt now that they are not the ones running it up. Surplus to disaster in eight years. Thanks, Bush.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
BroDeal said:
Ya gotta love how concerned all the fiscal conservatives are about the debt now that they are not the ones running it up. Surplus to disaster in eight years. Thanks, Bush.
I guess you missed that this is for one year of interest (2019) - that the $500 billion (short of the one year rate) is more than what is being spent on both wars, homeland defense, education and energy.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
BroDeal said:
Ya gotta love how concerned all the fiscal conservatives are about the debt now that they are not the ones running it up. Surplus to disaster in eight years. Thanks, Bush.
I have not been in favor of the spending habits of the government over the past 20 years. GWB may have signed those spending bills but he did not write them. Clinton had a surplus only due to accounting gymnastics.
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,851
0
0
Fundementals

CentralCaliBike said:
It might help to know a little history. The United States did not start with the constitution, we had a much weaker form of government and the concern was that it would not be sufficient to protect our citizens from the British (and any other foreign power) as well as from each other. OUr government was originally formed under the Articles of Confederation. Our currrent Constitution replaced the Articles of Federation.
We all started with a sperm and an egg but most don't celebrate "conception" day, we celebrate the ahhhh, "birthday!"

At any rate, we also don't get too misty eyed over all the "security" we have and as I pointed out, some of the wise men saw your beloved "security" as something that had to be carefully balanced and regulated.

Maybe you want a country whose citizens are quaking in their boots with you playing the hero, rescuing them from the bogeyman. GWB may be an imbecile but he recognized that fearful people were more malleable to his depredations. Contrast to what Liberal hero, FDR, had to say about fear.

I don't remember Nathan Hale fretting about his "security." In my public school they taught that he would do the exact same thing had he been given another life.
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,851
0
0
Riley Martin said:
You are right!

Most of the mortgages went out to the Mayonaise sandwich eating, John Cougar Mellencamp listening, FOX news watching, trailer park living fools, who voted for GWB.
Actually, 16 of the top 21 congressional districts with the most foreclosures were Republican districts. It would have been 19 but Dems won in three of those Republican strongholds in 2008.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
Add up the defense budget, the war budget, and the intelligence budgets, compare it to $700B, and then get back to me.

Ya gotta love how concerned all the fiscal conservatives are about the debt now that they are not the ones running it up. Surplus to disaster in eight years. Thanks, Bush.
Bush was not a conservative. Conservatives were not happy with the way he spent money.

And are you at all concernd with the exploding debt under your guy?
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,851
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Someone starving on the street has a different set of needs than somone looking for a job, no?

Dear Scott,

You do realize someone looking for a job may very quickly find themselves with the same needs as someone starving on the streets? Maybe you don't. GWB didn't realize it. He didn't realize it when a women told him at a town hall that she was working 3 jobs and still couldn't make it. GWB pointed out that "that is a uniquely American thing," as if working all the time and still going under was a good thing.

Scott SoCal said:
I don't know of anyone liberal or conservative who does not want to help someone starving on the street.
The difference is that liberals are willing to do something about it and that conservatives will give the issue lip service.

Scott SoCal said:
The difference is conservatives want to help them be productive and self sufficient.
Yeah, by giving millionaires a tax break on speculative investments that is just about all passive income.

Just like the conservatives beloved Jesus, who fed the multitudes with 2 fishes and 5 loaves of bread. Or like when the Good Samaritan, helped out the beaten guy on the street by putting him on the back of his donkey. The Good Samaritan extracted a promise from the bum that he would get off the dole and stand on his own two feet before putting him up in a hotel....and for just one night.

The liberals will put money to repair infrastructure and employ people on necessary and big projects that will put a lot of union construction people to work. The conservatives say we never have enough money to fix things. Only enough to blow things up in wars they themselves will never fight.

Liberals say they will enact govt. mandates to create alternative sources of energy so we are not held hostage by repressive Middle Eastern monarchies.

Conservatives befriend those Middle Eastern Kings and forge secret alliances that keep us addicted to foreign oil while ruining the atmosphere and then denying that any damage has taken place.

Scott SoCal said:
Liberals don't seem to think in those terms.
You're right, Liberals are reality based. Conservatives are practicing Voodoo.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
buckwheat said:
You're right, Liberals are reality based. Conservatives are practicing Voodoo.
Though Prime Minister and Conservative Party member, Neville Chamberlain was a modern Liberal in practice - he thought appeasement was the path to peace.

The following from various citations (but contained in the sometimes accurate Wikipedia) sums up liberal based reality.

After a lengthy monologue on problems in Europe that he hoped could be solved by the two nations working together in good faith,[171] Chamberlain took from his pocket a paper headed "Anglo–German Agreement", which contained three paragraphs, including language stating that the two nations considered the Munich Agreement "symbolic of the desire of our two people never to go to war again". According to Chamberlain, Hitler interjected "Ja! Ja!" as the Prime Minister read it.[172] The two men signed the paper then and there. When, later that day, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop remonstrated with Hitler for signing such a document, the Führer replied, "Oh, don't take it so seriously. That piece of paper is of no further significance whatever."[173] Chamberlain, on the other hand, when he returned to his hotel for lunch, patted his breast pocket and said, "I've got it!"[174] Word leaked as to the outcome of the meetings before Chamberlain's return, causing delight among many in London, though gloom amongst Churchill and his adherents.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
Bigots should be called exactly what they are. They should not be allowed to hide under the cover of euphemism or to think that people will be too polite to call them on their vile views.

The CRA issue is completely bogus. 80% of the mortages given out during the housing bubble were not subject to the CRA. What is more, the Federal Reserve found that loans affected by the CRA made up only 6% of problem mortgages. Perhaps you can explain why you want to blame brown people instead of blaming those who the bulk of mortgates went to or, even better, the people at the top who found they could make a mint by giving out loans that had little chance of being repaid.

Blaming minorities has been long typical for conservatives and was insitutionalized into Republican Party policy with the Southern Strategy. It is not an accident that the Republican Party has morphed into the the party of old, white men who wish it were still 1950. Unfortunately for them as the country becomes ever more diversified their party moves ever further from the mainstream of America.
You are really something. I'd appreciate you showing me and everyone on this thread where I've blamed anything on 'brown people'.

The mortgage industry functioned well when there was 2 - 4% deliquency rate. Raise the deliquency rate by even a few points and what happened? So to say that 80% of the mortgages were not effected by the CRA really misses the point. If 6% of problem mortgages were because of CRA then it stands to reason that it had a significant impact on what has happened. To say this is 'evidence' of bigotry is a lousy attempt on your part to stifle discussion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
You are really something. I'd appreciate you showing me and everyone on this thread where I've blamed anything on 'brown people'.

The mortgage industry functioned well when there was 2 - 4% deliquency rate. Raise the deliquency rate by even a few points and what happened? So to say that 80% of the mortgages were not effected by the CRA really misses the point. If 6% of problem mortgages were because of CRA then it stands to reason that it had a significant impact on what has happened. To say this is 'evidence' of bigotry is a lousy attempt on your part to stifle discussion.
But here is the problem, they weren't primarily because of CFA. The fact is that, having been in the industry, the majority of the mortgages in question were loans purchased by wall street firms and not the Federal government. As such, they were underwritten based on guidelines set by the investor. They were the ones hedging their bets, and there was not government money involved. The rates were not tied to anything involving Alan Greenspan, and there was a feeding frenzy of greed the likes of which we have not seen for quite some time.

The CRA thing did have repercussions, but much of it was a market failure fueled by lax regulations prohibiting who could and could not perform the functions of a bank. I promise, there is enough sh!t to be thrown around for most of the county to catch a piece.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh yea, and those wall st loans were hedged with insurance policies bought to infuse cash in the event that the loans defaulted at higher rate than was profitable, only the insurance companies who created the credit default swaps were not required to hold any cash to pay off those claims because the Federal government didn't require them too. I could be mistaken on this, but I am pretty sure you can thank Sen. Graham for that one.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Oh yea, and those wall st loans were hedged with insurance policies bought to infuse cash in the event that the loans defaulted at higher rate than was profitable, only the insurance companies who created the credit default swaps were not required to hold any cash to pay off those claims because the Federal government didn't require them too. I could be mistaken on this, but I am pretty sure you can thank Sen. Graham for that one.
The insurance business is a license to print money. The crisis in home loans was made worse by the bloated insurance companies looking to re-profit on their already enormous bank role. People in the NE bought houses with 100-110% loans with no income verification. And sorry to say the lure of home ownership was strongest in some low income areas. The NY Times had an article about a medical/home health worker who cleared 2600 a month.She was a single mom and had a young son. She bought a 440,000 dollar house, with NE taxes @6000 per year. Her mortgage payment alone was 2400. The appraiser never got out of his car,did a drive buy appraisal. and her paperwork was filled out at a diner,she was approved in less than 3 weeks. Katrina should teach us all about insurance companies, if they place a loosing bet, they pull out of the market all together, If live where it floods or storms have names you can forget about getting insurance,one a couple dozen of totally crocked industries in the US. Lots of brokerages have had to change their status to "Bank" after this, insurance exec's where doing banking without any rules. Boy don't we all wish there was one guy to blame.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
buckwheat said:
Dear Scott,

You do realize someone looking for a job may very quickly find themselves with the same needs as someone starving on the streets? Maybe you don't. GWB didn't realize it. He didn't realize it when a women told him at a town hall that she was working 3 jobs and still couldn't make it. GWB pointed out that "that is a uniquely American thing," as if working all the time and still going under was a good thing.



The difference is that liberals are willing to do something about it and that conservatives will give the issue lip service.



Yeah, by giving millionaires a tax break on speculative investments that is just about all passive income.

Just like the conservatives beloved Jesus, who fed the multitudes with 2 fishes and 5 loaves of bread. Or like when the Good Samaritan, helped out the beaten guy on the street by putting him on the back of his donkey. The Good Samaritan extracted a promise from the bum that he would get off the dole and stand on his own two feet before putting him up in a hotel....and for just one night.

The liberals will put money to repair infrastructure and employ people on necessary and big projects that will put a lot of union construction people to work. The conservatives say we never have enough money to fix things. Only enough to blow things up in wars they themselves will never fight.

Liberals say they will enact govt. mandates to create alternative sources of energy so we are not held hostage by repressive Middle Eastern monarchies.

Conservatives befriend those Middle Eastern Kings and forge secret alliances that keep us addicted to foreign oil while ruining the atmosphere and then denying that any damage has taken place.



You're right, Liberals are reality based. Conservatives are practicing Voodoo.
Now might be a good time to create scenarios that encourage business to hire (you know, BEFORE they are actually on the street). That's what the stimulus was supposed to do. You tell me, is it working?

I think you can stop with the GWB bashing as Obama is the president now.

The liberal idea of 'doing something' is hurting job creation, hence a rising unemployment. The conservative solution is putting people to work not handing them a govt check.

What in heck is stopping you guys from delivering all of you promises on 'shovel ready projects'? I have an idea of what it is. It's called politics. Most of the spending is geared for later in the Obama admin so he can run on a platform of an 'improved economy'. All I've heard from this admin is that the worst is over. Tell that to the folks out of work.

Liberals deny this country's ability to be energy independent. Nuclear Power? NO. Drilling (ANWR, Coastal California, Gulf of Mexico) for our own fossil fuels? NO. Clean Coal? HELL NO. Wind farms on Martha's Vineyard within sight of the Kennedy Compound? DOUBLE HELL NO.

As to the climate, well I'd be interested to see your take on the latest.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/index.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
But here is the problem, they weren't primarily because of CFA. The fact is that, having been in the industry, the majority of the mortgages in question were loans purchased by wall street firms and not the Federal government. As such, they were underwritten based on guidelines set by the investor. They were the ones hedging their bets, and there was not government money involved. The rates were not tied to anything involving Alan Greenspan, and there was a feeding frenzy of greed the likes of which we have not seen for quite some time.

The CRA thing did have repercussions, but much of it was a market failure fueled by lax regulations prohibiting who could and could not perform the functions of a bank. I promise, there is enough sh!t to be thrown around for most of the county to catch a piece.
I don't disagree. But some here want to paint the situation as entirely a one-way street.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S General 11
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS