PDA

View Full Version : JOBS, JOBS, JOBS



llotter
01-23-2011, 09:44 AM
Ya know, all the talk by our politicians about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS makes me think about what it must have been like in the days of the Politburo over in Moscow as the central planners were manipulating and fine tuning and pulling the strings in the puppet empire. It is difficult to imagine the size of the egos on these morons in our own time, the colossal conceit of these irresponsible bastards as they absorb and completely waste the lions share of our national income, our work effort, and then have the sheer audacity to exclaim to the world 'we must do better'. Duh!

I'm torn between recommending extended vacations for the lot of them or giving them all a pistol to do the only honorable thing. I think we need an entirely new crop whose duty it is to undo the decades of damage that have brought so much ruin to the greatest, freest country in history that we find ourselves on bended knee, begging the Commies to lend us more money.

Sev
01-23-2011, 10:51 AM
I hear ya.

pooltchr
01-23-2011, 12:01 PM
I think we did a pretty fair job of bringing in a whole new crop in November. Cleaning up a mess that big is going to take a little time. The voting public did a good job of starting to drain the swamp that Nancy failed to do, per her campaign promise.

(Well, now that I think about it, maybe Nancy did play a part in the recent swamp draining!)

Steve

Sev
01-23-2011, 02:46 PM
Unfortunately we didnt quite get rid of enough of the old cadre on both sides.

Soflasnapper
01-23-2011, 07:34 PM
This is a funny topic.

Back when the Clinton-era saw 22 million new jobs created, the right wing was adamant that government and politicians CANNOT create jobs at all. (So, obviously, whatever Clinton had done was not responsible for that jobs creation record.)

Except that they wanted to claim the high job creation numbers during Reagan's time as jobs he had indeed created. And moreover, that it was REAGAN who had created all the '90s jobs under Clinton's presidency. (Well, they are very flexible thinkers, we see!)

Somehow, that has now been forgotten, and now, of course, politicians can and should somehow create jobs. (Except Sharon Angle in her Nevada race, where she was quite blunt to say she would not be responsible for creating jobs in her position as senator.)

Which do you believe? It seems that economic and fiscal policies, and/or programmatic changes, CAN foster the conditions for job creation, or job destruction, but that it's kind of a bank shot situation, not so direct.

Apparently, Clinton's principle method of creating the condition for job creation was to be so fiscally prudent that interest rates came down, and stayed down, because of market forces' reactions to the glide path of deficit reduction he began by his tax hike and pay-go policy.

Now, regardless of some kind of reimposed fiscal discipline, we are not going to have the positive feedback of lowered interest rates, considering that the short term rates controlled by the Fed are at a zero boundary. So by what theory should fiscal restraint help add jobs, rather than kill them by the Keynesian analysis?
Except that they wanted to

Sev
01-23-2011, 08:20 PM
Technically no president creates jobs. Industry does.

Also Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to fiscal responsibility by Newt.

Gutting the government is one option.

Qtec
01-23-2011, 08:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think we did a pretty fair job of bringing in a whole new crop in November. </div></div>

..and a right bunch of nutjobs they are too.

All of them are GW deniers. Most of them believe in the Bible's version of creation and R Paul thinks that if a bar owner doesn't want Jews, Blacks or Mexicans in his bar then he should have the right to refuse them!

Not one of them gives me the impression that they are there to serve the public. They are in it for themselves.

Q

Sev
01-23-2011, 09:05 PM
More like the nuts got kicked to the curb.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 01:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to fiscal responsibility by Newt.
</div></div>

Hardly.

Clinton's own plan was to cut the deficit by 50% in his first term. He had a credible plan to accomplish that, but was told by Greenspan, Fed Chair, that the markets demanded more or else they'd rebel, costing him more in extra interest payments than his plan could save.

Bitterly, he met Greenspan's criterion at his considerable cost, because to further shrink the deficit in his first term further beyond the 50% he'd promised and planned for, he had to eschew his promise to afford the middle class a tax cut, plus eliminate his entire fiscal side strategy of high tech capital investments. He had to gamble that the promised lenient interest rate environment would be enough to boost the economy, even without the boost of the middle-class tax cut he'd promised and campaigned on. It worked, but not without the cost of losing the Congressional majorities, when he reneged on his middle-class tax cut promise.

So Clinton had embarked on a serious fiscal restraint, including agreeing to the pay-go governor on new spending, quite before Gingrich has anything to say about it. Later, Clinton's achievements included preventing Gingrich from blowing the incipient budget surplus on unnecessary and undesirable tax cuts for the top bracket earners, and contrary to the alternate GOP position, using all the surpluses to pay off the national debt to the tune of close to $500 billion dollars.

Remember, the Gingrich proposal to balance the budget was to take place 7 years out from his taking power in '95 (voted in as of early Nov. '94). The unified budget balance was achieved in '98 and '99, with an absolute surplus achieved in '00. By late '01, we were back in deficit.

LWW
01-24-2011, 03:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Technically no president creates jobs. Industry does.

Also Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to fiscal responsibility by Newt.

Gutting the government is one option. </div></div>

Facts. They are such stubborn things.

LWW

Sev
01-24-2011, 07:27 AM
Its a tough job however somebody has got to do it.

eg8r
01-24-2011, 02:41 PM
We have seen the jobs the Dems have been creating and they are federal jobs. More strain on the taxpayers and higher need for Obama to get on his knees when China comes to visit.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 11:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have seen the jobs the Dems have been creating and they are federal jobs. More strain on the taxpayers and higher need for Obama to get on his knees when China comes to visit.

eg8r </div></div>

Hmmm, no. 1 million private sector jobs, more than in the prior 8 years combined. Government jobs are declining overall, considering state government layoffs.

LWW
01-25-2011, 04:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have seen the jobs the Dems have been creating and they are federal jobs. More strain on the taxpayers and higher need for Obama to get on his knees when China comes to visit.

eg8r </div></div>

Hmmm, no. 1 million private sector jobs, more than in the prior 8 years combined. Government jobs are declining overall, considering state government layoffs. </div></div>

Data?

LWW

llotter
01-25-2011, 10:31 AM
If you can look past the partisanship for a moment, you would admit, i think that, that government is a burden on the productive sector and that the 'solutions' that government has attempted have been largely counterproductive. The government that governs best, governs least and allows the productive sector to raise the tide for the general welfare while maintaining maximum individual freedon.

Soflasnapper
01-25-2011, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have seen the jobs the Dems have been creating and they are federal jobs. More strain on the taxpayers and higher need for Obama to get on his knees when China comes to visit.

eg8r </div></div>

Hmmm, no. 1 million private sector jobs, more than in the prior 8 years combined. Government jobs are declining overall, considering state government layoffs. </div></div>

Data?

LWW </div></div>

No, Geordie.

Soflasnapper
01-25-2011, 03:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can look past the partisanship for a moment, you would admit, i think that, that government is a burden on the productive sector and that the 'solutions' that government has attempted have been largely counterproductive. The government that governs best, governs least and allows the productive sector to raise the tide for the general welfare while maintaining maximum individual freedon.

</div></div>

We've had 30 years of that philosophy. It cost us $500 billion to $1 trillion dollars in the S&L frauds, after THAT dereg. It's cost us 20% of the wealth of this country, in its housing stock and in the stock market, vanished into thin air or into the pockets of the banksters, after THIS dereg.

Even rugged individualist Ayn Rand fan Objectivist Alan Greenspan has given up his claims that the markets are best left to self-regulate.

As Adam Smith, seminal author of the theory of the genius of the market in his 'Wealth of Nations' (1776) stated, when you get two businessmen in the same room, they immediately conspire to rig the market and fix prices (thus ruining the market). From the very beginning of capitalism theory, it has always been known that private parties will try to ruin the market for their own private gain.

LWW
01-27-2011, 06:45 AM
This wasn't a free market caused incident.

What caused this was the repeal of Glass Stegall.

A cornerstone of fascist economics is that risk becomes a public debt while profit becomes private.

Do you honestly think the banks would have written the business they did without the gubmint guarantee?

Do you honestly think people wouldn't rush to the casino's if the state legislated that if you win you keep the winnings ... but if you lose you get your money back?

You are a smarter person than one who should be believing the lies propagated by the banksters and their willing minions in this ... and the last ... and the one before that ... regime.

LWW

Qtec
01-27-2011, 06:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What caused this was the repeal of Glass Stegall</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 5444 vote in the Senate </div></div>

link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105)

Q

LWW
01-27-2011, 10:35 AM
And ...

LWW

sack316
01-27-2011, 01:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And ...

LWW </div></div>

and... signed off on by WJC

Sack

LWW
01-27-2011, 04:10 PM
Thank you.

I have blamed both sides for the G-S debacle from the start.

Q , OTOH, blames the R's for passing it while thinking WJC was right in signing the bill.

LWW

Qtec
01-27-2011, 08:32 PM
And he has since regretted it.

Q

Qtec
01-27-2011, 08:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank you.

<u>I have blamed both sides for the G-S debacle from the start.</u>

Q , OTOH, blames the R's for passing it while thinking WJC was right in signing the bill.

LWW </div></div>

That's funny.


Q

sack316
01-28-2011, 12:16 AM
yeah I've brought that up 3 times that I can recall on this board. Maybe you'll have better luck with it than I did.

Sack

sack316
01-28-2011, 12:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank you.

<u>I have blamed both sides for the G-S debacle from the start.</u>

Q , OTOH, blames the R's for passing it while thinking WJC was right in signing the bill.

LWW </div></div>

That's funny.


Q

</div></div>

Actually, truth be told LWW did... as did I. If you'll recall numerous times I've said something along the lines of "yes republicans have more than their fair share of blame to go around, but they are not alone in it". Certainly republicans deserve the lions share of the blame... but not ALL of it.

The banking, insurance, and brokerage industry lobbyists spent over $300 million to republicans AND democrats in '97/'98 alone.

Sack

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 12:27 AM
This wasn't a free market caused incident.

What caused this was the repeal of Glass Stegall.

Many make this point, including the majority of Democrats who opposed it in the Congress at that time. (Clinton was not in the mainstream of the Democratic Party on many issues, including the Reagan-invented idea of NAFTA, which Clinton pushed through against strong Democratic Party and labor resistance. Clinton has now admitted that NAFTA was a failure and a mistaken policy, although he still says repealing G-S wasn't.)

However, there is little to show Clinton isn't right on this one, and rather, it seems more likely that the repeal of G-S had nothing to do with this situation.

More the failure to regulate the derivatives market, which was what the private market refused to allow and got Greenspan to oppose in his Congressional testimony.

It was the 30-1 leverage in those derivatives markets, which couldn't have taken that large a risk had they been regulated.

It was the private ratings agencies, which were paid directly by Wall Street, that put the false AAA ratings on this crap and seduced even sophisticated institutional traders like pension fund managers to put funds that needed to be secure into these falsely rated "AAA" instruments (for higher yields, and higher commissions).

The sub-prime originations were primarily in mortgage brokers like CountryWide, which were NOT banks at all, and wouldn't have been under G-S even had it been still been in effect.

Clinton made many mistakes, but his defense on this issue (which see) is compelling and nobody has told a reasonable alternate take to contradict what he's said on the subject.

sack316
01-28-2011, 12:48 AM
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

found an interesting article from november of '99... it pretty well called it

Sack

LWW
01-28-2011, 03:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And he has since regretted it.

Q </div></div>

1 - I don't think so.

2 - So what.

LWW

LWW
01-28-2011, 04:02 AM
The thing about Bill Clinton is that nobody has ever shown that he had a single core principle.

He was for tax cuts ... and tax hikes ... and gubmint expansion ... and deficit reduction ... and welfare expansion ... and welfare reform ... and pacifism ... and war ... and regulation ... and deregulation.

IOW ... Billy Jeff was the greatest politician of all time as he could get large numbers of all crowds to believe he was with them, when in reality he was solely about keeping Billy Jeff on AF1.

He was also extremely lucky, being that he was the only 2 term POTUS to never get a majority of the vote.

It is difficult to imagine he could have wom election at any other time in history.

LWW

Qtec
01-28-2011, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

found an interesting article from november of '99... it pretty well called it

Sack </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>While leading the CFTC in 1998</u>, Born declared that the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>unregulated contracts could "pose grave dangers to our economy."</span>Born, a lawyer who according to futures attorney Dan Roth battled fellow regulators with the ferocity of a courtroom litigator, <u>lost a turf fight with Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin over policing the deals.</u>

After Congress exempted the contracts from U.S. oversight in 2000, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the market swelled from about $100 trillion to $684 trillion by June 30.</span> The growth included credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, custom-made products barely in use under Born's reign. They played a part in almost $1 trillion of global bank losses and are prompting lawmakers to seek controls on the complex deals.

"Brooksley has been vindicated," said John Tull, a CFTC commissioner from 1993 to 1999. <u>"Had they listened to her, I think this catastrophe could have been averted." </u> </div></div>

watch it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXUQZP4mmwU&feature=related)

Q

LWW
01-28-2011, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

found an interesting article from november of '99... it pretty well called it

Sack </div></div>

WOW!

Even the commies saw the ruin that a fascist economic system would bring.

So long as the state attempts to insure deposit banks and investment houses with the FDIC we will have chaos.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 02:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The thing about Bill Clinton is that nobody has ever shown that he had a single core principle.

He was for tax cuts ... and tax hikes ... and gubmint expansion ... and deficit reduction ... and welfare expansion ... and welfare reform ... and pacifism ... and war ... and regulation ... and deregulation.

IOW ... Billy Jeff was the greatest politician of all time as he could get large numbers of all crowds to believe he was with them, when in reality he was solely about keeping Billy Jeff on AF1.

He was also extremely lucky, being that he was the only 2 term POTUS to never get a majority of the vote.

It is difficult to imagine he could have wom election at any other time in history.

LWW </div></div>

He was also extremely lucky, being that he was the only 2 term POTUS to never get a majority of the vote.

Only such president, if you ignore Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson (cough).

Gayle in MD
01-28-2011, 02:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Certainly republicans deserve the lions share of the blame... </div></div>

I don't recall your making that statement before, however, I surely agree with it! That's exactly what I've been saying, for years.

For some reason, you can say it, without the RW cyberstalking attacks and slander. I'm happy for you.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
G.

Gayle in MD
01-28-2011, 02:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

found an interesting article from november of '99... it pretty well called it

Sack </div></div>

Brooksley Borne called it as well. Greenspan fought her tooth and nail. Finally, he angled to take away her power, and managed to dilute it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.

</div></div>

Republicans=Deregulation=corruption=redistribution of wealth to the richest among us.

Same ol' same ol'....the rich, stealing from the poor and the middle, and for the most part, Republican p0olicies, allowing it.

It started with Reagan, and his deregulatory zeal.

I believe I fought many a battle here, with righties, aas I argued over and over, that corportions cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.



G.

sack316
01-28-2011, 03:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Certainly republicans deserve the lions share of the blame... </div></div>

I don't recall your making that statement before, however, I surely agree with it! That's exactly what I've been saying, for years.

For some reason, you can say it, without the RW cyberstalking attacks and slander. I'm happy for you.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
G.

</div></div>

Oh I said it <u>plenty</u>... if you will recall I'm more of an "everybody sucks" type of viewpoint here (in fact, I recall making a thread titled something like that).

Sack

Soflasnapper
01-29-2011, 11:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Certainly republicans deserve the lions share of the blame... </div></div>

I don't recall your making that statement before, however, I surely agree with it! That's exactly what I've been saying, for years.

For some reason, you can say it, without the RW cyberstalking attacks and slander. I'm happy for you.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
G.

</div></div>

Oh I said it <u>plenty</u>... if you will recall I'm more of an "everybody sucks" type of viewpoint here (in fact, I recall making a thread titled something like that).

Sack </div></div>

There is blame all around, I agree.

But NOBODY brings the crazy like the right these days! (Can I get an 'amen'?)

pooltchr
01-29-2011, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But NOBODY brings the crazy like the right these days! (Can I get an 'amen'?) </div></div>

YOu obviously haven't been reading Gayle and Q's posts.

Steve

sack316
01-29-2011, 03:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is blame all around, I agree.

But NOBODY brings the crazy like the right these days! (Can I get an 'amen'?) </div></div>

Sofla, glad you are at least capable of seeing the left is not perfect as well.

Yes the right does bring plenty of crazy. So does the left. Unfortunately it seems the nuttier ones of each side are typically the ones who yell the loudest (not to mention the media from each side tends to give those the most frequent airplay as well). So it's no wonder we each, from our respective viewpoints and beliefs, get the perception that "whoa, this whole group of people are nuts!"

Truth be told, there are good and bad republicans, and good and bad democrats. The bad from each side, IMO, are the ones more concerned with popularity, 'playing the game', and inflicting damage on the opposition than they are with dong their jobs for the country well. Outside of that small (and loudest) subgroup of each, I do believe representatives from both sides at heart do want to do a good job and do what's best for the country. They both want the same ends... but differ on opinions when it comes to the means of getting there.

I'll feel better about Washington when the louder voices become the ones that say "this is my idea, and I hope you think it's a good one" instead of "this is their (other side's) stupid idea, so don't support it" without truly having one of their own. And, admittedly in the last few years, yes the latter has come mostly from the minority.

Sack

LWW
01-29-2011, 05:01 PM
The biggest problems are that the media has convinced the public that:

1 - The political left, typically defined as being democrooks, are "LIBERALS" when they are far from it. The word liberal originated from the French "LIBERTINE" and is a person ... such as myself ... who believes in a state just powerful enough to prevent chaos and anarchy.

2 - That the republichickens represent conservatism ... which would appropriately be called liberalism ... when in fact they are simply democrook lite. Both major parties in America believe in the big state and depriving people of liberty.

3 - That politically democracy is a good thing, when history has shown it most assuredly is not. As Benjamin Franklin so eloquently put it "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding who's for dinner."

4 - That there are actually more than two choices politically. There are not. The only system ever shown to promote liberty and prosperity in the long term is a republic, and ours was the best ever. All other choice either are an oligarchy, or lead to anarchy which leads to oligarchy. You can call it communism, socialism, fascism, monarchism, or any other kind of politial ism ... it's all the same thing and that's the small minority inflicting their will upon the masses. The only things left are a democracy, and all have devolved into anarchy, and anarchy itself. Anarchy ... which is just democracy without the polish as both are mob rule, differing only in whether the iron fist does or doesn't have a velvet glove ... always leads to some form of oligarchical gubmint as the mob eventually loses it's bloodlust and demands order.

LWW

Qtec
01-29-2011, 05:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">typically defined as being democrooks, </div></div>

No they are not. They are only called that by childish buffoons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only things left are a democracy, and all have devolved into anarchy, and anarchy itself. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Anarchy ... which is just democracy without the polish as both are mob rule,</span> </div></div>

LOL . You are off your trolley mate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4 - That there are actually more than two choices politically. There are not. <u>The only system ever shown to promote liberty and prosperity in the long term is a republic </u></div></div>

Really, what do you call long term and what do you think republic means. There are many interpretations.

Q

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 02:05 AM
The media needs to tell the truth.

LWW
01-31-2011, 05:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really, what do you call long term and what do you think republic means. There are many interpretations.

Q </div></div>

A republic is what makes a nation a nation of laws and not of men.

LWW

LWW
01-31-2011, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnnyD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The media needs to tell the truth. </div></div>

To do this they must first know the truth.

LWW

Qtec
01-31-2011, 07:31 AM
Who makes the laws?

Men?

Q............LOL

Gayle in MD
01-31-2011, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Certainly republicans deserve the lions share of the blame... </div></div>

I don't recall your making that statement before, however, I surely agree with it! That's exactly what I've been saying, for years.

For some reason, you can say it, without the RW cyberstalking attacks and slander. I'm happy for you.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
G.

</div></div>

Oh I said it <u>plenty</u>... if you will recall I'm more of an "everybody sucks" type of viewpoint here (in fact, I recall making a thread titled something like that).

Sack </div></div>

Saying "Everybody Sucks" is a far cry from saying "Republicans deserve the Lion's share of the blame."

To my knowledge, you've never admitted that, before.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article detailing the impact of the proposed law declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."

This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.

And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.



</div></div>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I've written many times, Republican POLICIES, have destroyed this country.

Can you read these paragrahs quoted above, yet fail to see that fact?



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </span>
There is blame all around, I agree.



But NOBODY brings the crazy like the right these days! (Can I get an 'amen'?) </div></div>

</div></div>


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Amen! </span>

LWW
01-31-2011, 11:47 AM
A religious conversion dearheart?

LWW

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really, what do you call long term and what do you think republic means. There are many interpretations.

Q </div></div>

A republic is what makes a nation a nation of laws and not of men.

LWW </div></div>Well said.

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 06:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A religious conversion dearheart?

LWW </div></div>Ohh my!

JohnnyD
01-31-2011, 06:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnnyD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The media needs to tell the truth. </div></div>

To do this they must first know the truth.

LWW </div></div>The truth will set them free.

Stretch
02-01-2011, 02:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really, what do you call long term and what do you think republic means. There are many interpretations.

Q </div></div>

A republic is what makes a nation a nation of laws and not of men.

LWW </div></div>

Ya right, a law for the rich, and a law for the poor.....St.

LWW
02-01-2011, 04:32 AM
We know that's what the left supports ... but it's so rare to see one of you admit it.

LWW