It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for.

page: 12
45
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


The only reason for the spending blitz is because the Tax breaks for the rich, subsidies to big oil and for corporations who send jobs overseas, end all 3 and a trillion plus a year will be added back into the nation not requiring us to loan a cent, but ending tax breaks stifles the "Job Creators" according to you which is flawed!


The only jobs created by the richest 1% are valets, maids, cooks, and gardeners. If they can get illegal immigrants to do these jobs for $20 a day they will.

They already get a much lower rate of income tax on money that they make from investing in companies, why give them any more on their income as well?

Job creation as a reason for giving the rich tax breaks is definitely flawed.




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 



The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct charged U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, a Democrat from New York, with 13 violations in late July, including failing to pay taxes on rental income he received from a Dominican villa.



The Office of Congressional Ethics charged U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California, with allegedly using her office to provide assistance to a bank in which her husband owned stock to ask for federal bailout money.

usgovinfo.about.com...


The claim made against Pelosi is that she bought stock in at least eight initial public offerings (IPOs) of stock while having access to information and some control over legislation that would affect the value of the stock right after the offering, thus allowing her to make a hefty, immediate short term profit immediately after obtaining the stock. In 2008, just one of the stocks was in shares of a credit card company, VISA, a company that was concerned about proposed “pro-consumer” legislation that would regulate their activities. Pelosi’s profit alone in this stock rose $100,000 in just two days after she purchased it, and the legislation VISA was concerned about never made it to the floor of the House in that session, where Pelosi was Speaker of the House and controlled what bills were brought forward for a vote.

www.capoliticalreview.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Couple this with the McConnell stance of making Obama a "1 term POTUS" means they are Anti American treasonits bastages!


You just made my friends' list.


I do believe it was REPUBLICAN McConnell who said: "The primary focus of the GOP is and should be insuring Obama is a one term president."

All other priorities are further down the list for the GOP



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


If regulations and taxes send jobs overseas, then how is it that during the nineties when taxes were higher on the rich, and regulations were stronger, and Clinton was doing a good job of enforcing regulations, the job market was far stronger, and middle class businesses and workers were thriving.

When all else fails, you people who want to blame all the problems on government, then claim that government can not be made to work, and History clearly demonstrates that you are wrong, when looking at the sixties, early seventies, and the nineties.

The U.S. economy has done better with strong regulations and high taxes on the rich. The WW II gen knew how to do this, why can't we?

Try taking this historic reality into consideration.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ILikeStars
 


I second that motion.

Republicans in congress have gone from pretending to represent the people, to all out attempt to destroy representative government at this point in time.

I have no desire to live under a corporatocracy.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by tvtexan
 


It is republicans blocking the nomination of a department to protect consumers, not the democrats.

That is just another line of BS to continue to pull in the rubes.

While the democrats have their problems, the republicans in this era, are completely and wholly owned by the bankers.



If this so called department is anything like the Dodd Frank protection bill then it's just more bureaucracy.

Tell me you dont still believe the show is anything but. There is no real distinction between right and left and most major legislation is passed at the hands of both partieIs especially in a split congress. In your OP you complain about a shrinking government... As opposed to what, the government regulated and controlled bureaucratic utopia of the extreme leftists?

I propose that a vote for Obama next year (
I still can't believe the shills who still back this tool) is a vote for big government, more control and invasion of your personal affairs, and a continuation of the same failed policies of both obama and his predecessor.

If you still believe there is a distinction between a president in blue and one in red then please explain why the left had all the control early in this administration and what did they do...... Ran with the same damn policies of the previous administration. Now why would that be? Couldn't possibly be because politicians are all shills and puppets. Until people really demand actual real change the problems we face will continue to unfold exactly as planned. No matter whatsee in the main puppet the puppeteer remains unseen.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


This is exactly what corporations do to the American worker, since the regulation over American workers is stringent and rightfully so they go to places like India or China where there is far less regulation, proof the Deepwater Horizon Drill Rig that exploded and leaks millions of gallons of petrol into the Carribean Ocean was registered in The Marshall Islands who has no oil regulations and no laws regulating oil.



But you said it was corporate subsidies which sent manufacturers overseas.

Pick one.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


If regulations and taxes send jobs overseas, then how is it that during the nineties when taxes were higher on the rich, and regulations were stronger, and Clinton was doing a good job of enforcing regulations, the job market was far stronger, and middle class businesses and workers were thriving.

When all else fails, you people who want to blame all the problems on government, then claim that government can not be made to work, and History clearly demonstrates that you are wrong, when looking at the sixties, early seventies, and the nineties.

The U.S. economy has done better with strong regulations and high taxes on the rich. The WW II gen knew how to do this, why can't we?

Try taking this historic reality into consideration.


Government regulation and increased tax on the richest strata of society may help alleviate the contractions of capitalism, for a while.
However, you forget that Clinton oversaw the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act which led to the deregulation of the financial sector - directly playing a role in the Great Recession.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Wow, are you really this naive?


In a free market no company would release medicine that killed. They would go out of business. In a regulated market they will pay fines and fees for murder but not go out of business.


Yeah, that business might close, but the people who ran the scam still walk away with the money, and no responsibility. They are then free to go run their scam elsewhere. Is this a world you want to live in?

In a regulated market, if found negligent, they will pay fines, and some people might wind up going to jail, and may very well go out of business.

The rest of your post is in complete ignorance of history, establishment of regulations, and the advancement of first world economies.

There is no such thing as a free market economy, and it never has existed. You can prove me wrong by naming one successful free market economy. The U.S. is not one, and has been regulated from the beginning.








The market has already been way over-regulated and now you insist that it is deregulation which has caused all our grief.
There is an old saying, "the serpent speaks with forked tongue"



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


There was a plan that died a long time ago that was going to allow an employer to dictate what sites you went on during your personal time, who you associated with, what friends you have,

pantheos.wordpress.com...

If that plan would've gone though your employer could fire you for being on ATS.



Well, whatever that plan may have been, thanks to the Information Technology sector, employers now can track every site you go to, what's in your email, everything you do online, how much time you spend surfing the net, etc. I saw a presentation for a new software system that would raise your hair on end. (unless you like being tracked)


Incidentally, I oppose this kind of dictatorial stuff in either corporations or big govt. Corporations are getting on the bandwagon of controlling your smoking habits by telling you they will not allow you to be in the health care plan they offer.
ANd people condemned Herman Cain for his ad with the guy smoking. Either you want some liberties or you want Totalitarianism. What's it to be? You think govt is going to stop this trend? Don't hold your breath buddy.
edit on 11-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by lrak2
 


Clinton didn't oversee the repeal of Glass Steagal, that was Newt's baby from the beginning.

Clinton signed the bill as a compromise, and it was the biggest mistake of his presidency.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Your failure to name a successful deregulated free market economy proves you wrong, and dishonest at the same time.

Are you honestly looking for the truth?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 
What a bunch of crap. If any group is Socialistic and Oppose our Constitution, it is the Democrats. The one good thing about those of you who live in the big cities is you'll be the first to be eating each others cats and dogs and then each other...just stay where you are.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Your failure to name a successful deregulated free market economy proves you wrong, and dishonest at the same time.

Are you honestly looking for the truth?




Yes, I look for truth all the time, it's just not the one you are looking for. Sorry. You and I will never agree on some things.
Find me a free market economy that's regulated.....

European economies are falling like dominos. How come these socialist economies have to be bailed out? Isn't a baillout with taxpayer money socialization of an economy or an industry? On the other hand, we have national debt(from fannie/freddie defaulted loans) being privatized with credit default swaps.
Both scenarios are abuse of innocent people.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


As I thought, you can't name a successful free market economy.

I can name a few attempts that failed miserably. Ireland, Iceland, and the U.S. over the last decade are good examples of what a failure free market economic is.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


What role did Newt play in the repeal? It was Gramm, Leach and Bliley who introduced the legislation.
Clinton, on the other hand, was going full steam ahead with the neoliberal economic policies that helped transfer the remaining wealth from the poor and middle classes to the richest few.
edit on 11-12-2011 by lrak2 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Wow, are you really this naive?


In a free market no company would release medicine that killed. They would go out of business. In a regulated market they will pay fines and fees for murder but not go out of business.


Yeah, that business might close, but the people who ran the scam still walk away with the money, and no responsibility. They are then free to go run their scam elsewhere. Is this a world you want to live in?

In a regulated market, if found negligent, they will pay fines, and some people might wind up going to jail, and may very well go out of business.

The rest of your post is in complete ignorance of history, establishment of regulations, and the advancement of first world economies.

There is no such thing as a free market economy, and it never has existed. You can prove me wrong by naming one successful free market economy. The U.S. is not one, and has been regulated from the beginning.








I have just found the fallacy in your logic. You say that regulations are necessary for things to be stable, and now here you are saying that we have never had a free market economy.
The truth is that we have a mixed economy, where this is a smattering of Capitalist enterprise, socialist programs and govt spending, and Keynesian econ.
What I think you are trying to do is say that we never had free enterprise but only corrupt Capitalism. But that still doesn't account for the fact that if our economy is failing, it becomes difficult to track what the problem is when you have many different kinds of economies going.
Capitalism feeds socialism. If it didn't socialist economies would fail immediately. Communism failed in the Soviet Union. Centralized planning failed. If there was no Capital, there would be nothing to redistribute.

Socialism is a cancer on society because it penalizes those who work by taking away the fruits of their labor, and rewards those who do not work.
Socialism gets a room at the Inn by making people feel guilty for those who are genuinely displaced, but it's a fact that some people just work the system.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Your failure to name a successful deregulated free market economy proves you wrong, and dishonest at the same time.

Are you honestly looking for the truth?




Yes, I look for truth all the time, it's just not the one you are looking for. Sorry. You and I will never agree on some things.
Find me a free market economy that's regulated.....

European economies are falling like dominos. How come these socialist economies have to be bailed out? Isn't a baillout with taxpayer money socialization of an economy or an industry? On the other hand, we have national debt(from fannie/freddie defaulted loans) being privatized with credit default swaps.
Both scenarios are abuse of innocent people.


A "free" market economy that is regulated? Well... how about every single country in which the capitalist mode of production dominates? The world economy is failing because this is a global crisis of capitalism.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


As I thought, you can't name a successful free market economy.

I can name a few attempts that failed miserably. Ireland, Iceland, and the U.S. over the last decade are good examples of what a failure free market economic is.




Well, first of all, we had a booming economy in the 20's. Remember that? Or did you read history? The Roaring 20's ? Then in 29 was the market crash. The Fed was ostensibly for regulating booms and busts but is that what it really did?
The programs of FDR and the New Deal were just band aids for the real problems, but by then the Fed was getting entrenched, and socialism was taking root by the end of his term. Many people say that the New Deal prolonged the Depression.

How about you tell me what socialist economy is really booming?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
The repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act was a Republican Act.


The bill that ultimately "repealed" the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-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 54–44 vote in the Senate[15] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives


See Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

It would be folly to assume this bill alone cause the economic collapse, but it did play a major role, as did other deregulation actions.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join