Moderator: Andrew
7 Wishes wrote:They won't.
It's easier to embellilsh their factoids than to process thought processes or construct belief systems that are predicated upon fact.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Meaningless.
In my post, I listed reforms that have been signed into law, or are currently making their way through committee.
Like I said, when the Volcker plan comes up for a vote, get out your scoreboard, and watch and see which party means business...
Personally, I’ll take stale geriatric farts who believe in regulation, over supply-side fundamentalists, who leave everything up to the "inerrant" gods of the market.
For fuck's sake, even Greenspan has thrown himself in front of congress and humbly admitted the error of his no-oversight ways.
When will you guys wake up?
RocknRoll wrote:Volker Plan is not even going to make it to a vote. Supposedly, it's dead already.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:RocknRoll wrote:Volker Plan is not even going to make it to a vote. Supposedly, it's dead already.
That seems to be the word on the street...
Expect a financial reform bill with loopholes big enough to drive a convoy of peterbilts through.
Par for the course for this administration.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:slucero wrote:
Why would something that has been as you say "kicked around for years" (but not on Bush's watch),…
Those economists and reformers that wanted the act re-instated all along never went away under Bush, they just didn’t have the president’s ear.
Bush was honed in like a laser on uprooting FDR protections (namely, social security), not reinforcing them.slucero wrote:...that gets re-proposed (in a bi-partisan way no less) the year after Wall Street melts down..
Good on McCain for having a moment of lucidity, even if his righteous action is probably motivated by an upcoming tough primary fight.
However, with moderate rockefeller Republicans, like McCain, rapidly going the way of the Dodo, what makes you so sure one will always be around to help push progressive policies?slucero wrote: …suddenly get passed just because Obama is President??
For the same reason it took electing a Democrat in 2008 to enforce labor laws, or to sign the Lilly LedBetter Fair Pay Act, or to push for Net Neutrality, or to take on the credit cards’ usorious interest rates and deceptive practices.
As broken as the two party system is, and as corrupt as the Democrats are, of the two parties, they remain the only legitimate avenue of change.slucero wrote:...and again... I don't care about parties... they are all the same... Demlicans, Repurocrats...
Your cynicism is well-deserved and, for the most part, I agree with it.
But what’s your answer? - sit at home and don’t vote?
That form of civic nihlisim will get you exactly nowhere.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:separate_wayz wrote:I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this one. Take a look at who chairs these important House committees (and when they first took office) and ask yourself when's the last time they entertained a new idea:
Appropriations: David Obey (1969)
Education and Labor: George Miller (1975)
Energy and Commerce: Henry Waxman (1975)
Financial Services: Barney Frank (1975)
Judiciary: John Conyers (1965)
Transportation and Infrastructure: James Oberstar (1975)
Ways and Means: Charles Rangel (1971)
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming: Ed Markey (1976)
Talk about ossified, encrusted fossils. I don't think any of these guys have entertained a new idea or have been open to real government reform since the Jurassic Era (or the 1970s, whichever came first).
Meaningless.
In my post, I listed reforms that have been signed into law, or are currently making their way through committee.
Like I said, when the Volcker plan comes up for a vote, get out your scoreboard, and watch and see which party means business...
Personally, I’ll take stale geriatric farts who believe in regulation, over supply-side fundamentalists, who leave everything up to the "inerrant" gods of the market.
For fuck's sake, even Greenspan has thrown himself in front of congress and humbly admitted the error of his no-oversight ways.
When will you guys wake up?
separate_wayz wrote:"Get out your scoreboard", huh ....
Based on your more recent post I guess the score is:
Stale Geriatric Old Fart Democrat Committee Chairmen: 1
Meaningful Reforms (Including the Volker Plan): 0
The Volker Plan was never going to see the light of day. Paul Volker was a useful Obama prop during the 2008 campaign, after which he was shuffled off into oblivion.
Those committee chairmen I cited have been the bane of both Democrat and Republican presidents. And I'll anticipate your response: yes, the Republicans have had their share of true-reform blockers, like Jerry Lewis (R-CA) when he chaired the Appropriations Committee (a.k.a., "The Favor Factory"). A plague on both their houses.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
I'll still take imperfect regulation over the non-existence of regulation, or worse, the systemic rollback of pre-existing regulations - which is all the GOP continually offers.
The fact that regulation, a four letter word under the last crew, is even a national topic of conversation, is some sort of victory for those who believe in clean government.
JrnyScarab wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:
I'll still take imperfect regulation over the non-existence of regulation, or worse, the systemic rollback of pre-existing regulations - which is all the GOP continually offers.
The fact that regulation, a four letter word under the last crew, is even a national topic of conversation, is some sort of victory for those who believe in clean government.
The House passed the Financial Reform bill in December with NOT ONE Republican vote! Wall Street seems to have them under their spell.
In the last week I've seen the following:
1) State of the Union - Obama talks about his tax cuts and Repubs stay seated while Democrats applaud. I thought Repubs love tax cuts? Oh, I get it... Only when THEY propose them.
2) Obama outwitted the Repubs in their own setting. Very nice.
3) Repubs against meaningful financial reform.
Lots of nice campaign material for the Democrats if you ask me!
artist4perry wrote:Both sided suck.
artist4perry wrote:JrnyScarab wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:
I'll still take imperfect regulation over the non-existence of regulation, or worse, the systemic rollback of pre-existing regulations - which is all the GOP continually offers.
The fact that regulation, a four letter word under the last crew, is even a national topic of conversation, is some sort of victory for those who believe in clean government.
The House passed the Financial Reform bill in December with NOT ONE Republican vote! Wall Street seems to have them under their spell.
In the last week I've seen the following:
1) State of the Union - Obama talks about his tax cuts and Repubs stay seated while Democrats applaud. I thought Repubs love tax cuts? Oh, I get it... Only when THEY propose them.
2) Obama outwitted the Repubs in their own setting. Very nice.
3) Repubs against meaningful financial reform.
Lots of nice campaign material for the Democrats if you ask me!
Both sided suck. And Democrat sheep are as gullible as Rep sheep..........those who see no flaws in their side are sheep.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:artist4perry wrote:Both sided suck.
And what would you have us do?
Vote Green?
Vote Teabagger?
Vote LaRouche?
I mean this sincerly.
JrnyScarab wrote:artist4perry wrote:JrnyScarab wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:
I'll still take imperfect regulation over the non-existence of regulation, or worse, the systemic rollback of pre-existing regulations - which is all the GOP continually offers.
The fact that regulation, a four letter word under the last crew, is even a national topic of conversation, is some sort of victory for those who believe in clean government.
The House passed the Financial Reform bill in December with NOT ONE Republican vote! Wall Street seems to have them under their spell.
In the last week I've seen the following:
1) State of the Union - Obama talks about his tax cuts and Repubs stay seated while Democrats applaud. I thought Repubs love tax cuts? Oh, I get it... Only when THEY propose them.
2) Obama outwitted the Repubs in their own setting. Very nice.
3) Repubs against meaningful financial reform.
Lots of nice campaign material for the Democrats if you ask me!
Both sided suck. And Democrat sheep are as gullible as Rep sheep..........those who see no flaws in their side are sheep.
Sorry, but I do see flaws on both sides, but the fact is the Democrats platform is geared more to helping the average Joe in America than the Repubs. That's not to say they ACTUALLY always do what they say. Here's an interesting acticle about why people vote against their self interest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
JrnyScarab wrote:artist4perry wrote:JrnyScarab wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:
I'll still take imperfect regulation over the non-existence of regulation, or worse, the systemic rollback of pre-existing regulations - which is all the GOP continually offers.
The fact that regulation, a four letter word under the last crew, is even a national topic of conversation, is some sort of victory for those who believe in clean government.
The House passed the Financial Reform bill in December with NOT ONE Republican vote! Wall Street seems to have them under their spell.
In the last week I've seen the following:
1) State of the Union - Obama talks about his tax cuts and Repubs stay seated while Democrats applaud. I thought Repubs love tax cuts? Oh, I get it... Only when THEY propose them.
2) Obama outwitted the Repubs in their own setting. Very nice.
3) Repubs against meaningful financial reform.
Lots of nice campaign material for the Democrats if you ask me!
Both sided suck. And Democrat sheep are as gullible as Rep sheep..........those who see no flaws in their side are sheep.
Sorry, but I do see flaws on both sides, but the fact is the Democrats platform is geared more to helping the average Joe in America than the Repubs. That's not to say they ACTUALLY always do what they say. Here's an interesting acticle about why people vote against their self interest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
separate_wayz wrote:JrnyScarab wrote:artist4perry wrote:JrnyScarab wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:
I'll still take imperfect regulation over the non-existence of regulation, or worse, the systemic rollback of pre-existing regulations - which is all the GOP continually offers.
The fact that regulation, a four letter word under the last crew, is even a national topic of conversation, is some sort of victory for those who believe in clean government.
The House passed the Financial Reform bill in December with NOT ONE Republican vote! Wall Street seems to have them under their spell.
In the last week I've seen the following:
1) State of the Union - Obama talks about his tax cuts and Repubs stay seated while Democrats applaud. I thought Repubs love tax cuts? Oh, I get it... Only when THEY propose them.
2) Obama outwitted the Repubs in their own setting. Very nice.
3) Repubs against meaningful financial reform.
Lots of nice campaign material for the Democrats if you ask me!
Both sided suck. And Democrat sheep are as gullible as Rep sheep..........those who see no flaws in their side are sheep.
Sorry, but I do see flaws on both sides, but the fact is the Democrats platform is geared more to helping the average Joe in America than the Repubs. That's not to say they ACTUALLY always do what they say. Here's an interesting acticle about why people vote against their self interest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
I read this article earlier. Total rubbish. The article reeks of elitist snobbery and uses questionable scholarship (like Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas"). I particularly like the article's use of loaded phrases such as the "opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters." Really? Obvious, huh? So of course (no surprise) socialized-bureaucratized medicine is cited as an example.
Basically this BBC article amounts to a low-rent, hand-me-down, third-rate presentation of (discredited) false consciousness theory: "why do you proletariats keep opposing what WE know is good for you?!?" Gosh, if it weren't for you damn tea-baggers, the proletariat would find their correct class consciousiness and support ObamaCare. Damn tea-baggers!![]()
Personally, I give voters credit for often seeing through politicians' bullshit, and knowing where it could lead (and usually has). It's just humorous that commentators (like the author of this BBC article) have to dig deep in their pile of discredited theories to explain what is so obviously upsetting to them.
Fact Finder wrote:Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million
By Stephen Dinan
The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.
The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:artist4perry wrote:Both sided suck.
And what would you have us do?
Vote Green?
Vote Teabagger?
Vote LaRouche?
I mean this sincerly.
Fact Finder wrote:Now click the link and see what Reuters has to say...I wonder why the story was pulled, and who pressured whom to remove it?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_ ... kdoortaxes
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
7 Wishes wrote:You know what I'd like to see? The abolishment of platform-based party affilliation. No-one running for public office should be able to run as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
Unfiltered messages without biases. I'd like to know where someone stands and what they TRULY believe is best for their constituency rather than worrying about saying the right thing in order to increase their chances of being elected. That would put partisan rhetoric to an end once and for all.
Fact Finder wrote:
Now click the link and see what Reuters has to say...I wonder why the story was pulled, and who pressured whom to remove it?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_ ... kdoortaxes
7 Wishes wrote: No-one running for public office should be able to run as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:artist4perry wrote:Both sided suck.
And what would you have us do?
Vote Green?
Vote Teabagger?
Vote LaRouche?
I mean this sincerly.
Tito wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:artist4perry wrote:Both sided suck.
And what would you have us do?
Vote Green?
Vote Teabagger?
Vote LaRouche?
I mean this sincerly.
Pat Buchanan '92 or Ross Perot '92
Pat Buchanan '96 or Ross Perot '96
Pat Buchanan '00
S.O.L. '04
Ron Paul '08 (and Tancredo may have been good too '08)
JrnyScarab wrote:1) State of the Union - Obama talks about his tax cuts and Repubs stay seated while Democrats applaud. I thought Repubs love tax cuts? Oh, I get it... Only when THEY propose them.
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests