No expert but I thought this was a no brainer (possibly why Bush got it). So, whats the view stateside? Is it correct that quite a few don't want to be seen as socialists by interfering in the market?
Dates
· UTC
Bailing out the banks
Archived53 replies · 1,472 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
Yes, the Repugnicans who voted against it are free market ideologues who believe that the bailout puts the U.S. on the road to socialism. Better to destroy the U.S. economy, and with it, the global economy, than to accept any role for government (aside, of course, from tax cuts for the wealthy).
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yes, the Repugnicans who voted against it are free market ideologues who believe that the bailout puts the U.S. on the road to socialism. Better to destroy the U.S. economy, and with it, the global economy, than to accept any role for government (aside, of course, from tax cuts for the wealthy).
What about the 95 dumbocrats that voted this thing down? Plenty of blame to go around here.
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yes, the Repugnicans who voted against it are free market ideologues who believe that the bailout puts the U.S. on the road to socialism. Better to destroy the U.S. economy, and with it, the global economy, than to accept any role for government (aside, of course, from tax cuts for the wealthy).
What about the 95 dumbocrats that voted this thing down? Plenty of blame to go around here.
Most Democrats voted for the bailout. Most Repugnicans voted against it. The Repugnican leadership utterly failed at it's one job-- leadership-- in bringing enough Repug votes to the table to get it passed.
Basic maths.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yes, the Repugnicans who voted against it are free market ideologues who believe that the bailout puts the U.S. on the road to socialism. Better to destroy the U.S. economy, and with it, the global economy, than to accept any role for government (aside, of course, from tax cuts for the wealthy).
What about the 95 dumbocrats that voted this thing down? Plenty of blame to go around here.
Most Democrats voted for the bailout. Most Repugnicans voted against it. The Repugnican leadership utterly failed at it's one job-- leadership-- in bringing enough Repug votes to the table to get it passed.
Basic maths.
It's a shame cos it was just about the most sensible thing I remember Dubya ever proposing.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yes, the Repugnicans who voted against it are free market ideologues who believe that the bailout puts the U.S. on the road to socialism. Better to destroy the U.S. economy, and with it, the global economy, than to accept any role for government (aside, of course, from tax cuts for the wealthy).
What about the 95 dumbocrats that voted this thing down? Plenty of blame to go around here.
Most Democrats voted for the bailout. Most Repugnicans voted against it. The Repugnican leadership utterly failed at it's one job-- leadership-- in bringing enough Repug votes to the table to get it passed.
Basic maths.
So there is no blame for Pelosi not bringing 13 more of her fellow dumbocrats over to the "good" side? It's just more basic maths. Obama never said that he would vote for the measure, maybe he didn't believe in the thing either.
Like I said, there's plenty of blame to go around, you can't just lay it all at the feet of the repugnicans.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
It's a shame cos it was just about the most sensible thing I remember Dubya ever proposing.
Dumbya wouldn't be smart enough to come up with a plan like this. Just another example of somebody else pulling the strings on this puppet.
Yes, 23 (basic maths) more Democrats would have got it passed. If Pelosi had been successful in getting those 23 votes, it still would have been without Repugnican leadership...which plays right into the Repug game plan of blaming the Dems for the bailout.
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote:
It's a shame cos it was just about the most sensible thing I remember Dubya ever proposing.
Dumbya wouldn't be smart enough to come up with a plan like this. Just another example of somebody else pulling the strings on this puppet.
It was Bernanke who came up with the plan, and sold it to Paulson. The two of them sold it to Dumbya.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yes, 23 (basic maths) more Democrats would have got it passed. If Pelosi had been successful in getting those 23 votes, it still would have been without Repugnican leadership...which plays right into the Repug game plan of blaming the Dems for the bailout.
You talk about basic maths, but you can't figure out that only 13 more yes votes would have won this one, not 23. The dumbocrats could have passed this one all on their own if they were THAT interested in doing so.
I'll leave you to go figure out addition and subtraction. When you get those basic skills down, then I might be interested in your opinion on why this bill didn't pass.
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yes, 23 (basic maths) more Democrats would have got it passed. If Pelosi had been successful in getting those 23 votes, it still would have been without Repugnican leadership...which plays right into the Repug game plan of blaming the Dems for the bailout.
You talk about basic maths, but you can't figure out that only 13 more yes votes would have won this one, not 23.
Yep, my mistake.
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: The dumbocrats could have passed this one all on their own if they were THAT interested in doing so.
I'll leave you to go figure out addition and subtraction. When you get those basic skills down, then I might be interested in your opinion on why this bill didn't pass.
You can't possibly imagine that I really care what you're interested in.
Chalk it up as another Republican fantasy: Saddam had WMDs. Deregulation works. The economy is strong. The Democrats killed the bailout....
Life in America over the past few years has felt like being in a huge fuck fest, with middle class tax paying, working folk being the unfortunate non-willing receivers.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Chalk it up as another Republican fantasy: Saddam had WMDs. Deregulation works. The economy is strong. The Democrats killed the bailout....
ummmm... I PERSONALLY saw WMDs in Iraq that belonged to Saddam...
Actually the issue that we have comes from government regulation on mortgauges... so deregulation could have possibly saved us...
...and before you throw all Republicans in one boat, it is the House Republicans (which tend to be more far-right-leaning) that didn't go for it, while the Senate Republicans did...
...the plan has alot of holes in it that has both interests (dems and reps) very concerned. Its how this effects our economic future that concerns everyone. This isn't just throwing money at something, its changing the ideals that the US has been built upon... ideals many Reps and Dems hold dear. The question isn't if we should do the bail out that is stopping this thing, its more how do we handle future bailouts and corporate failures.... this could lead to a financial blackhole....
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Chalk it up as another Republican fantasy: Saddam had WMDs. Deregulation works. The economy is strong. The Democrats killed the bailout....
ummmm... I PERSONALLY saw WMDs in Iraq that belonged to Saddam...
Too bad you never reported them. Because the world was told we never found them. Could've saved W from looking like a liar.
EdelBrock wrote: Actually the issue that we have comes from government regulation on mortgauges... so deregulation could have possibly saved us...
No, the "issue" is an unregulated sector of the financial markets, and the efforts of John McCain and other deregulators to keep that sector unregulated.
EdelBrock wrote: ...and before you throw all Republicans in one boat, it is the House Republicans (which tend to be more far-right-leaning) that didn't go for it, while the Senate Republicans did...
It's been postulated several times in the last week that the House Repugs are working hand-in-hand with john McCain to save his candidacy. You know, "Country First" and all that. 
EdelBrock wrote: ...the plan has alot of holes in it that has both interests (dems and reps) very concerned. Its how this effects our economic future that concerns everyone. This isn't just throwing money at something, its changing the ideals that the US has been built upon... ideals many Reps and Dems hold dear. The question isn't if we should do the bail out that is stopping this thing, its more how do we handle future bailouts and corporate failures.... this could lead to a financial blackhole....
It's not that throwing $700 billion at Wall Street is something we should all be happy to do-- it's that ushering in a world-wide depression is a much, much worse course of action.
All that aside, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anything about free markets in the founding documents of this nation. Those "ideals" reflect the values of contemporary extreme right ideologues, rather than those of the founding fathers, or even those of Adam Smith.
On the WMDs, they were reported, and I have pictures though I can't post them for obvious reasons. They made the news, but it made little impact at the time... I have NO idea why noone brings them up.... possibly because they were left over from the Iran-Iraq War and not new?
The whole issue was started by Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, which caused lending institutions to fail, as are insurance companies... so it IS controlled by regulation problems. Yes the institutions in question aren't regulated themselves, but the regulated market of mortguages is what caused the domino effect....
And you are completely wrong as it is the one of the founding cornerstones. US idealogy is based on Lockean Liberalism which bases the idea that if man is given personal property with little to no regulation, that he will take care of it and prosper more than if it were regulated.
EdelBrock wrote: On the WMDs, they were reported, and I have pictures though I can't post them for obvious reasons. They made the news, but it made little impact at the time... I have NO idea why noone brings them up.... possibly because they were left over from the Iran-Iraq War and not new?
The weapons the U.S. sold to Iraq in the first place?
EdelBrock wrote: On the WMDs, they were reported, and I have pictures though I can't post them for obvious reasons. They made the news, but it made little impact at the time....
No, they were never reported and never made the news. Probably because they never existed.
Feel free to come up with some concrete evidence that I'm wrong about the news.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: On the WMDs, they were reported, and I have pictures though I can't post them for obvious reasons. They made the news, but it made little impact at the time....
No, they were never reported and never made the news. Probably because they never existed.
Feel free to come up with some concrete evidence that I'm wrong about the news.
I guess I'm a fucking liar? I would just say shit to make myself look good? With a reply like that, you can find the posts yerself. Its actually pretty easy to do:
Go to Google and type in "Mustard Sarin Gas"... you don't even have to put in Iraq, but it works better if you do....
Also, I was almost hit by a sarin mortar from insurgents and had to put a tournequette on a wounded Marine's leg from it... my medical report shows all the medicine I had to take because they feared I had exposure to the shit...
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: On the WMDs, they were reported, and I have pictures though I can't post them for obvious reasons. They made the news, but it made little impact at the time....
No, they were never reported and never made the news. Probably because they never existed.
Feel free to come up with some concrete evidence that I'm wrong about the news.
I guess I'm a fucking liar? I would just say shit to make myself look good? With a reply like that, you can find the posts yerself.
You made the claim about WMDs being reported in the news. Why should I do your research?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: On the WMDs, they were reported, and I have pictures though I can't post them for obvious reasons. They made the news, but it made little impact at the time....
No, they were never reported and never made the news. Probably because they never existed.
Feel free to come up with some concrete evidence that I'm wrong about the news.
I guess I'm a fucking liar? I would just say shit to make myself look good? With a reply like that, you can find the posts yerself.
You made the claim about WMDs being reported in the news. Why should I do your research?
Cause its monkey work, Fuck off
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: On the WMDs, they were reported, and I have pictures though I can't post them for obvious reasons. They made the news, but it made little impact at the time....
No, they were never reported and never made the news. Probably because they never existed.
Feel free to come up with some concrete evidence that I'm wrong about the news.
I guess I'm a fucking liar? I would just say shit to make myself look good? With a reply like that, you can find the posts yerself.
You made the claim about WMDs being reported in the news. Why should I do your research?
Cause its monkey work, Fuck off
Translation: I can make any wild claim, in complete contradiction of all published reports, and if anybody doubts me, THEY can do the research to prove me wrong.
Three things:
How about you just put into Google the shit I mentioned
I don't appreciate being called a liar
Get off this crap and get back on subject
Ermm, I could be wrong but aren't Mustard Gas and Sarin different agents?
Mustard Gas was used in WW1 in the trenches, and Sarin was infamously used on the Tokyo underground a few years back. Without attempting to google, I always understood both are debilitating nerve agents, as used by Saddam on his own people in the eighties.
A weapon of mass destruction, though? Perhaps in his own country.
But surely not a 45 minute threat to the West, without an undiscovered delivery system.
EdelBrock wrote: Two things:
How about you just put into Google the shit I mentioned
Get off this crap and get back on subject
You still don't get it.
(1) When you make an argument, it is your responsibility to provide support for your own argument. It is not the responsibility of the people you are making your argument to.
(2) You are the one who got on this crap, and now that it;s going badly for you, you would understandably like to get back on the subject.
Burt Reynolds wrote: Ermm, I could be wrong but aren't Mustard Gas and Sarin different agents?
Mustard Gas was used in WW1 in the trenches, and Sarin was infamously used on the Tokyo underground a few years back. Without attempting to google, I always understood both are debilitating nerve agents, as used by Saddam on his own people in the eighties.
A weapon of mass destruction, though?
Surely not, without a delivery system.
I hadn't heard of the discovery of these weapons until i just googled them. Chemical agents were found, but:
I don't know about everybody else, but I hardly think that when George Bush got us to invade Iraq on the basis of Saddam's ongoing WMD program, that we all understood it to mean 500 ancient shells containing an inactive blister agent.
