RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill

RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 1:36:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Those local projects should be funded by local and state government. If they need to raise taxes to pay for a project, then propose it to the population and let the people vote on it. You're joking, right? The righties in my county can't see the advantage of keeping our schools the top-rated in the state because they'd have to pay an extra penny for the Local Option Sales Tax. Wow. From 5 cents to 6 cents. And it's a regressive tax, which righties LOOOOVE. You are probably also not aware that, because the Busheviks have not only kept all previous unfunded mandates, but made up a whole bunch more (gotta keep Tewwawists from planting subversive books in liberries), that state and local govts are flat-out broke. Is right-wing philosophy going to have its own entry in the DSM-V?

farglebargle -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 3:52:30 AM)
quote: Actually, this is a common fallacy. Since 2002, the Republican party - specifically, John McCain and others - had warned us no less than 17 times that an economic crisis was increasingly likely as the subprime scandal took off. Yet -- they did NOTHING.

slvemike4u -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 6:17:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VivaciousSub quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Yes, but thanks to the Republicans we have a bailout. I'm sure you're mighty proud of that. Actually, this is a common fallacy. Since 2002, the Republican party - specifically, John McCain and others - had warned us no less than 17 times that an economic crisis was increasingly likely as the subprime scandal took off. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o for more information on the root of the problem. Interesting to note, guess who's received the most money - ever - from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? That'd be Obama. Finally, the Democrats, being in the Majority, do not even need the Republicans to pass the bailout bill. So why on earth are they waiting around for them? Cause they need to be able to claim complicity should something go wrong. Always handy to have those Republicans around to dump on should the shit hit the fan from this. No one bothers to check further. Well given your assertion,tell us what the Republican dominated congress(2002-2006)and the Republican President did to avert this crisis....Leadership amounts to a bit more than pronouncements from the Senate floor.If they saw this coming and did nothing effectively to avert it they are quilty of dereliction of duty ,are they not?

NumberSix -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 6:28:43 AM)
Finally, the Democrats, being in the Majority, do not even need the Republicans to pass the bailout bill. So why on earth are they waiting around for them? Cause they need to be able to claim complicity should something go wrong. Always handy to have those Republicans around to dump on should the shit hit the fan from this. No one bothers to check further. LOLOLOLOLOL, Now wait just a fuckin minute here. There is bitching and has been since Dems regained control that they are not negotiating with Pubs. This is a rather seminal piece of legislation....whatever it is, EVERYONE is gonna have to be on board. We are talking about somebody's money who we know, for sure. The thing about dumping on pubs should shit go wrong don't even enter into it, it clearly is in the mind of the american public that pub policy brought us to this state, and the dems only need say, well we tried to save 'er but the pubs had already augered it into the ground too far... So, that outlook is a non-starter. 6

DarkSteven -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 6:31:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VivaciousSub the Democrats, being in the Majority, do not even need the Republicans to pass the bailout bill. So why on earth are they waiting around for them? Cause they need to be able to claim complicity should something go wrong. Always handy to have those Republicans around to dump on should the shit hit the fan from this. No one bothers to check further. You've gotta be kidding. The lax regulations that fostered this have been abused largely under Bush. The Dems aren't saints but the GOP has its fingerprints all over this. Why do you think Bush begged not to ask why the crisis occurred when he addressed the US? Te Dems are willing to pass this piece of trash, but they have no reason to destroy their careers for it.

rulemylife -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 6:48:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor For anyone too blind to see it, there was NO deal on a bailout when McCain came back to Washington. The Congressional Republicans were in NO WAY in agreement on this. McCain did what Obama should have done, which is to suspend the campaign, if for no other reason, than to focus the media on DC, and not split with DC and following two campaigns. As far as the loaded up bill...I hope it goes nowhere until they strip from it provisions for the corrupt ACORN group, and demands that union bosses sit on boards of companies that are involved, as well as any other Christmas ornament. This is too important to be anything other than a clean bill that the taxpayer can understand. Yep, sure wouldn't to see any money going to corrupt organizations in a bill to bail out corrupt companies. We have to keep our priorities straight.

rulemylife -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:00:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Hate to break it to you but Bush is not a conservative. I'm sure you and every other conservative were saying that eight years ago too, right?

slvemike4u -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:01:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor For anyone too blind to see it, there was NO deal on a bailout when McCain came back to Washington. The Congressional Republicans were in NO WAY in agreement on this. McCain did what Obama should have done, which is to suspend the campaign, if for no other reason, than to focus the media on DC, and not split with DC and following two campaigns. As far as the loaded up bill...I hope it goes nowhere until they strip from it provisions for the corrupt ACORN group, and demands that union bosses sit on boards of companies that are involved, as well as any other Christmas ornament. This is too important to be anything other than a clean bill that the taxpayer can understand. Please point out to me ,in any substansive way,how did McCain suspend his campaign.Other than saying he was suspending the campaign ,I noticed little difference....

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:20:55 AM)
Greetings Tim, quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Hi Orion, I don't disagree in principle, but things aren't that easy. For example, if we want enhanced security at ports in NYC or LA or New Orleans, who pays for all that? And who benefits from the jobs? Not a good example, as it has a clear national impact. quote: Many industries around the country--sometimes understandably, sometimes outrageous--receive subsidies because they are supposedly essential to national security. What happens then? If they are privately owned then they sink or swim based upon the capitalist system they were built on. quote: What if an interstate needs to repair a bridge across the Mississippi. Do we demand the local residents pay for it? Or let them decide whether we can have highways that cross it? Do we let them create a toll bridge, charging whatever they wish? Again it has a clear national interest. quote: Certainly there's waste and fraud. But these things didn't spring up without reason. Live well, Tim You list the valid ones, but I do not see you list the ones that do not have a clear national interest. Why should people in California pay for a Senior Center in Florida? Why should anyone pay for a small town to be the official Christmas Tree Town of the United States? Why should a local developer be subsidized in Georgia by money from New Hampshire? Here is a good read http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007 As you stated, politicians do it because they can tell the voters how much money they were able to get back from the federal government. Well the reason it is not so easy, is because we make excuses and accept this behavior. How about we stop spending on these pork projects, pay for the things we are spending now, reduce spending, and then reduce taxes. I know it is a novel concept but I feel the less waste, the less taxes, means more money in everyone's pocket which in turn makes it better for the country. I suppose I am just an archaic fiscal conservative that does not align with any party. Live well, Orion

Joenextdoor -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:23:16 AM)
Actually Obama did do legal work for ACORN.

Musicmystery -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:24:12 AM)
Orion, As the point of my post was to point out that national interest complicates the "local only" approach, I don't see your point. Of course I raised the ones with national interest. I agree with you on the small shit. Tim

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:25:52 AM)
I see the discussion has melted down to a elementary schoolyard name calling contest again.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:27:43 AM)
Tim, My point is those things that only have a local impact, should be paid for with local tax dollars, not Federal ones. Sorry I thought that point was pretty clear. What is labeled as the small shit amounts to a lot of money, just look at the pork barrel report. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Orion, As the point of my post was to point out that national interest complicates the "local only" approach, I don't see your point. Of course I raised the ones with national interest. I agree with you on the small shit. Tim

Musicmystery -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:36:32 AM)
Hi Orion, And again, on that point I agree. But FAR more stuff is lumped under that national interest category, both legitimately and inappropriately, from defense to infrastructure. I'm also a fiscal conservative, btw. But federal money is going to continue to be pumped into local projects (even if we manage to eliminate the small shit, which yes, adds up), and regions will continue to compete for those dollars. Discretionary spending is actually a rather small percentage of the budget. Different groups like to break up the budget categories differently, but to seriously address our financial woes, we'll have to do more than eliminate unneeded local projects. If we can eliminate them, great. Tim

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:38:27 AM)
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=CCAGW_getinv_Advocacy_2007Earmarkpledge_IssuePage

Musicmystery -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:38:38 AM)
chuckle Again? I hadn't noticed it had ever stopped! ;-) quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I see the discussion has melted down to a elementary schoolyard name calling contest again.

Joenextdoor -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:41:59 AM)
The seeds of this whole mess were planted in the first Clinton administration. After 4 years, he saw the mess that was going to happen, but for whatever reason, he didn't push to fix it. It was further spurred on by Barney Frank who demanded that Fannie and Freddie encourage banks to give loans to those who don't qualify. Housing starts went up, as well as housing prices. Most if those loans for less than qualified people went out with no money down. These homes were over valued. When the housing bubble began to burst, and prices started falling back to more a more true valuation, ARMs reset and the foreclosure mess began. Once that began, it fed itself, in that as more were foreclosed, it depressed prices which caused more resets, and more foreclosures. I am tired of hearing that the fault lies with Bush. He has been a convenent boogeyman for the last 7 years. He was not in office when the rules were relaxed. He is not guilt free, as he could have made this an issue, but really all parties were asleep at the switch anyway. In this country, we do a poor job of looking ahead, and only seem to react to disaster. The last point I want to make is about ACORN. ACORN was going out and encouraging poor people to buy homes. They helped them find lenders, helped with the applications, and basically put people in this situation. They pressured lenders to make loans, and now they are calling those same lenders "predatory". This organization needs to be looked at by the Justice Dept., but that won't happen as the Democrats won't let it. They are corrupt and committing voter fraud, but nobody seems to care. We need to get back to a situation where people who buy homes actually have a documented income, an acceptable credit score, and a down payment of 5-10%. What on earth did Barney Frank think would happen if we got away from this standard?? The idea is a good one. Create home ownership among those that might not otherwise become owners, but we see now the huge mess this has created. It all goes back to what I have always believed....You can't help those who won't help themselves. Government should not give people things, but instead, create an environment where hard work rewards the individual with the things that they want, such as a home.

dcnovice -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:44:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Obama has a socialist background? President Bush will sometime early next week sign the biggest piece of socialist welfare for the rich and priviliged in the history of the republic.Stop worrying about Obama's past and pay attention to Bush's present.... Not to mention the administration has just nationalized a large portion of the financial sector. Textbook socialism. I heard someone describe the bailout the other day as "Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses."

NumberSix -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:47:33 AM)
Now that is just an inconvienient starting point for me, Joe. I would rather hearken back to the Gip and the massive de-regulation bandwagon when everyone was a pub. Supply side economics, no government interference in the munificence of big-business, don't tax, but spend, they can police themselves, Milton Friedman, that sorta shit........... Can you extend and revise your remarks in that framework? LOL. 6

Joenextdoor -> RE: Democrats trying to force pork into bailout bill (9/28/2008 7:49:43 AM)
As far as this bill goes. I hate like anything that we even have to be doing this, and hate even more that some companies will benefit, but if we do not act, this is going to hurt the average person alot more than what this bill is going to cost them now. Beyond that, it is possible that the government will recoop most if not all of this money. This should have never been called a "bailout" from day one. This word has caused the average person who doesn't have a clue what is going on, to think that its going to be a check written to executives who got into trouble. If that were the case, I would be crying "money for corrupt companies" too. The truth is, the government is buying these securities so that these financial companies can again have money to lend. Without this, credit will be frozen, and as a result, you will see this economy come to a grinding halt. Much like we did with the Resolution Trust Corp., we will buy them, and over time sell them.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625