Today's House vote

Post Reply New Topic

If you read and analyze, you get past all that pretty quick. If my party is wrong on something I gladly point it out, on the other hand its only about 25% of the time that they're actually accused of it as such - feeling like the lone voice on it can feel quite tiring particularly when the facts get ignored so much in the news. Bush's great strategy f'd up Iraq I'll give you that. He also continued Clinton's military cuts a bit, I'll give you that. The rest is mostly mythology.

Constitution-rewriting? Think your confusing him for the leftist justices of the Supreme Court; they have a habit of grabbing at international common law and call it 'transubstantiation', that the constitution is supposedly a 'living breathing document'. They took a vote on the validity of the 2nd amendment not too long ago for god sake and yeah, t'd be great if we had to rely on the government and police had to defend us. I'm sure the founding fathers would definitely agree that tyranny, crime, nah - 1776 is nothing like now whatsoever, people are much more pure of heart, far more enlightened and civilized now; no need for all that.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 29 Sep 2008, 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Where the problems come in are businesses needing to borrow money in the short term for assets, merchandise, even for payroll - wouldn't be able to. There was an example last week, McDonald's couldn't even buy assets for operations. When you have that or people unable to get car or housing loans, its in the beginning of something really bad. I really don't like to see the loans go out but - we at least have to find a way to insure the loans. I've heard arguments that the government should temporarily hold the assets just because, if the companies actually are given money there's possibility that they may misuse it. The bill today I think had enough provisions that it should have been something that both parties could have agreed on; why they didn't, I have no clue.

Repeat after me people:
"Schadenfreude is not policy."

If the government isn't going to be all laissez faire, it should at least intervene when it makes sense.


To a large extent, IIRC, many people think that Great Depression being as long and as bad as it was was actually the government's fault.

Yes, FDR got us through it emotionally but - The New Deal and a lot of the other problems slowed the recovery process a lot. Amity Shlaes wrote about it extensively in 'The Forgotten Man'.

I <3 the United Socialists of America!

must bail out big buisneess who got this way on their own mistakes, while letting middle class familioes go homeless because of theses com[panies mistakes

if you knew anything about money and where we're really at right now, you'd understand that giving bailout money to failed companies doesn't make sense. give incentives and rewards to smaller banks and assist them in getting larger (while still maintaining sensible regulations) and allow the old failed banks to die off. out with the old generation and in with the new. it'd strengthen the GDP, create more stable jobs, and help secure wall street by showing responsible and confident use of money rather than haphazard interest cuts or shoddy bailouts for failure companies.


i'm not encouraging simply laissez-faire but i am saying that injecting money into maintaining the status quo will only cause more failure.

citation plz? Word on the street is that predictions is difficult business.

I hope you mean the Ghandi type of socialist.
A couple years back I pondered the idea of Nazi America and...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/30/b ... se_rejects

The best way to hold the fatcats accountable for their acts would be to let their businesses fail and be liquidated. No bailout, no throwing taxpayer money into the problem.