# All 41 GOP Senators Promise To Delay Financial Reform



## Dante (Apr 25, 2010)

> Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, predicted all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay...a deal.
> 
> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn't expect the bill...would go forward. "We want to make sure that they don't have...financial services... health care," McConnell said on " Fox News Sunday."


-latimes.com

Why did the GOP want Americans to go without Health Care Reform, and why do they now want America to go backwards without any financial reform for a better American economy?

They want power. Power over ideology and over duty, honor, and country.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 25, 2010)

Why do you think more regulation is going to fix problems when those who are overseeing said regulation are too busy watching pornography to do their job?

We dont have a lack of regulation problem. We have a lack of honesty problem.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 25, 2010)

The current draft doesn't reform the financial system, unless one considers institutionalizing even more power for the government to bail out firms a reform.

I don't.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 25, 2010)

Government will always resort to more spending when faced with a financial crisis that may impact their electability, power and influence.  The banks are simply nothing more than scapegoats.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2010)

Perhaps because what's being passed off as reform isn't really reform.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 25, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Perhaps because what's being passed off as reform isn't really reform.



I don't think that's ever crossed anyone's mind on the left. Any time the government does something it's good as far as they are concerned.


----------



## blu (Apr 25, 2010)

lets see healthcare reform that doesn't reform healthcare and now finanical reform that doesn't "..."


----------



## code1211 (Apr 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> > Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, predicted all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay...a deal.
> >
> > Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn't expect the bill...would go forward. "We want to make sure that they don't have...financial services... health care," McConnell said on " Fox News Sunday."
> 
> ...




A while ago, we re-painted our guest bath and installed new lights and a new mirror.  We did so to match the new floor that had been installed about a year or so before that.

This weekend it rained so i went to work and raised the fixture higher so I could raise the mirror which was too low to see my reflection without stooping over.

This whole project was a Republican Party approach.  Pick out the few things I wanted to correct, then correct them.  If one of them went awry, correct that one part.  Simple.  

Using the approach of the Democrat Party, if I noticed that i wanted to make some improvements to the guest bath, I'd have disconnected all of the water and power from the house, torn the house down, used the existing foundation, built a house big enough so that if the house was ever sold, no matter how the large the family was to move in, there would be enough room.  

The old foundation would not bear the weight, but that's not really the concern of a visionary  

Following that, I'd set up funding through burrowed money to assure that the house was always supplied with power and would commit all of my resources and savings to this pursuit at the cost of every other part of my life.  If I found that this was not in my best interest, it would be too late and I would have already hired attorneys to assure that if i ever tried to back out of it even marginally, I would be put out on the street but still have to pay for it.

This is the Democrat method.  Suicidal.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 25, 2010)

Shelby was resisting discussion about when they might begin debate but Dodd kept pushing so he finally said maybe the end of this week, beginning of next.  

They have to be so freaking, tediously slow about everything.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2010)

Republicans only want control so they can screw up America in their fashion, not in the dems fashion.

We shall see how the voters like the party of no at the polls.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Perhaps because what's being passed off as reform isn't really reform.



Now that is a fair possibility but I suspect not the republicans reason for the delay.

What it needs to be is reregulation on the parts that have been shown to need it.
Banks and derivitives for example.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps because what's being passed off as reform isn't really reform.
> ...



The only regulation we need is on the Federal Reserve, who caused all the problems in the first place.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I disagree, Banks and derivitives and hedge funds.  Plus possibly ratings agencies.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Without the Fed's policies the market would have been able to handle all of that.  Low interest rates and easy credit distorted the market, created a bubble, and ultimately crashed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 25, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Clear and convincing evidence from an objective, fair and balanced link, please.


----------



## Cal (Apr 25, 2010)

How stupid are these people? Do they _really_ want to go home to their constituents and explain why they stood against reforming wall street? I guess if it means saying "NO!" to the dems, they are all for it. Can't wait to see how this plays out in NOV.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Did the Fed Cause the Housing Bubble? - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2010)

WE caused a lot of the problems by maxing out our credit.  Using our homes like piggy banks for equity loans instead of using them as homes.
By buying more homes than we could really afford or needed, by "knowing" that they would double in value soon and we could make a mint.

Becoming upside down on auto loans for status and want reasons, not needs.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> WE caused a lot of the problems by maxing out our credit.  Using our homes like piggy banks for equity loans instead of using them as homes.
> By buying more homes than we could really afford or needed, by "knowing" that they would double in value soon and we could make a mint.
> 
> Becoming upside down on auto loans for status and want reasons, not needs.



And it wouldn't have been possible without the Fed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 25, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Let me guess here, Kevin: a strong libertarian sway at the Institute?


----------



## Alpha1 (Apr 25, 2010)

YoungLefty said:


> How stupid are these people? Do they _really_ want to go home to their constituents and explain why they stood against reforming wall street? I guess if it means saying "NO!" to the dems, they are all for it. Can't wait to see how this plays out in NOV.



Are you really ignorant enough to believe that just because the word "reform" in in the name of the bill, it actually reforms something....???

I admit I don't know exactly what this new legislation says, but I'm not just gonna buy into it because of the word "reform"....

Just like the Healthcare Reform Bill....its a government takeover of the entire healthcare system, its not "reform" at all....


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > WE caused a lot of the problems by maxing out our credit.  Using our homes like piggy banks for equity loans instead of using them as homes.
> ...



why would it not have been possible without the fed?  Diminished perhaps but still a big issue.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Are there really any independent thinking "think tanks" ?
I think not.  They are all either politically or corporate driven.  And the difference between the two reasons grows smaller every day.

I view all "think tanks" as having an agenda which is not often in my best interests.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Absolutely.  But you find for me some source that isn't biased one way or another, and then we can talk.  The Austrians predicted this crisis, as you can see from the article I posted which was written before the crash.  Are they biased?  Of course.  But the more important question is, were they right?  And the answer to that is yes.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



The money for all those loans simply would not have been there had the market been setting interest rates rather than the Fed.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I also predicted the crisis.  Too many things too far out of balance.  It had to fall apart.
And I am still not sure it will go back together.

I think we will have to learn to live with less.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



umm who do you think pressured the Fed to keep rates low?
"The Market" as a controlling force does not really exist much any more.

It will require a really big collapse with no bailouts for "the market" to once again become the driving factor.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 25, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



It doesn't matter who pressured them.  The fact is they did it, and if the market was setting interest rates this wouldn't have happened.


----------



## Meister (Apr 25, 2010)

From my understanding, this Bill isn't far off on it passing.  The republicans are concerned of the wording that would open doors for the government to expand in the future.
Of course, it's my opinion that that is exactly what the democrats want....more power.
Let's not consider the fact that they can't even run their own House, but now are experts in running the private industry.  I can't explain it, but I imagine there would be a good spinning yarn out there somewhere.


----------



## Meister (Apr 25, 2010)

YoungLefty said:


> How stupid are these people? Do they _really_ want to go home to their constituents and explain why they stood against reforming wall street? I guess if it means saying "NO!" to the dems, they are all for it. Can't wait to see how this plays out in NOV.



You just need to read everything and not just your partisan blogs.


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 26, 2010)

Dante said:


> > Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, predicted all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay...a deal.
> >
> > Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn't expect the bill...would go forward. "We want to make sure that they don't have...financial services... health care," McConnell said on " Fox News Sunday."
> 
> ...



The GOP wants exactly the same things as the dems. When you understand that ALL politicians have those common goals you stated, you realize that the people only have strength in numbers. If we all understand, we can then all drop the partisan BS and work toward a common goal of ending corruption and power grab in DC and get back to common values such as reducing the deficit, ending earmarks and getting jobs going.
Agree?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 26, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Both of you are letting the Democratic leadership off easy.  They were the ones driving home ownership as a goal and using the Fed, banks and derivitives as tools in that quest.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

The Republicans were in that with the Democrats, saveliberty.   Both parties were at fault.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Who was it calling for an audit and reigning in of Fannie and Freddy and who was it who blocked that attempt?...That was pretty much the last chance to avert the meltdown and it was torpedoed by members of only one political party.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

You are telling me the minority blocked the majority?    And now you support the minority blocking the majority?  Even more


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

how can they persist with this idiot thing that freddy and Fanny repackaged the subprime loans and sold them a triple A investments.

The only people stupid enough to buy that line of thinking are already right leaning.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

You have zero room to call anyone an idiot, meathead.

When you have taxpayer dollars propping up an grossly overvalued commodity --no matter what that commodity is-- you're going to have an inevitable collapse...It's how boom-bust value bubbles are created, you economic ignoramus.


----------



## Cal (Apr 26, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> > How stupid are these people? Do they _really_ want to go home to their constituents and explain why they stood against reforming wall street? I guess if it means saying "NO!" to the dems, they are all for it. Can't wait to see how this plays out in NOV.
> ...



Is that the new rw talking point? 'The Wall Street reform bill is an entire govt. takeover of the healthcare system! ..Well, that beats all.

And no, I'm not ignorant enough to buy a bill just because it had the word "reform" in it. If that were the case, I'd for sure support the Arizona immigration bill, because it has a nice little, feel good name. But no, This bill, like health reform, doesn't go near far enough but it is a foundation to build on.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are telling me the minority blocked the majority?    And now you support the minority blocking the majority?  Even more


What I'm for is less authoritarian central control....You're for more of it, no matter how you get there.

Pretty weak attempt at distraction, Jokey.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are telling me the minority blocked the majority?    And now you support the minority blocking the majority?  Even more
> ...



Dood-Dood, the truth is never distraction, only your comment.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

The truth is that the people proposing the "reform" are exactly the same people who are at least partially responsible for the crash....Exactly the same people who refused to audit and investigate Fannie & Freddie, and to call Franklin Raines, Jim Jones, Jamie Gorelick to account for committing the same criminal acts Ken Lay did.

Given those circumstances, they deserved to be blocked at every turn.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 26, 2010)

Dante said:


> > Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, predicted all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay...a deal.
> >
> > Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn't expect the bill...would go forward. "We want to make sure that they don't have...financial services... health care," McConnell said on " Fox News Sunday."
> 
> ...



R are stopping Obama from taking over the banking industry because they want power? LOL

What a fucking retard!

Then again having Chris "CountryWide used to claim me as a dependent on their tax return" Dodd write the bill is Pretty fucking funny to start


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Nope, you are wrong as usual, and I crack up at your imaginary expertise in economics.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Nobody needs to be an expert in economics to know more than you on the topic, Jokey.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, you are wrong as usual, and I crack up at your imaginary expertise in economics.



He does this all the time.

He is merely a republican appologist and that is his only expertice.

Now watch him scream hes not a republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Nobody needs to be an expert in economics to know more than you on the topic, Jokey.


  Self-delusion on your part, Dood Dood.


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 26, 2010)

Welcome to the "Party of No"..... the "Party of NOvember".


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> You have zero room to call anyone an idiot, meathead.
> 
> When you have taxpayer dollars propping up an grossly overvalued commodity --no matter what that commodity is-- you're going to have an inevitable collapse...It's how boom-bust value bubbles are created, you economic ignoramus.



You havent been following the news have you?

What about all that repackaging of loans to create a product doomed to fail that they could then bet would fail and make even more money.

That is gram leach bliely and every sane person knows this.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody needs to be an expert in economics to know more than you on the topic, Jokey.
> ...


Not at all....That I know way more about the subject than you is beyond obvious.

But you keep a-paddlin' away.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Welcome to the "Party of No"..... the "Party of NOvember".



How did that work out for you last election?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



HAHAHAZHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



"i'm an excpert really I am"

says an internet clown


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > You have zero room to call anyone an idiot, meathead.
> ...


Who is it that guaranteed a good share of those bundled mortgages, meathead?

C'mon....It's OK...You can tell us....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 26, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to the "Party of No"..... the "Party of NOvember".
> ...



You mean the Kennedy Seat?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

Who is it that hired the SEC people who viewed porn instead of policing the market?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



that was just one seat wasnt it , how about EVER OTHER one?

I hope you will be happy with the one seat you get next time too.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Who is it that hired the SEC people who viewed porn instead of policing the market?


We're not talking about the SEC here, deflectasaurus rex.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



It was not the idividual mortgages that cause this mess. It was how they could bundle this horseshit and resale it and claim it was gold.

If there was no way to bundle this ratshit the loans never would have been written.

The system broke because the people writing the loans could dump them on unsuppecting investors.

I see you still dont get it and will refuse get it because you are a partisan hack


----------



## del (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Who is it that hired the SEC people who viewed porn instead of policing the market?
> ...



bush's brother was involved in the savings and loan scandal.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

Teapot Dome, anyone?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Who is it that hired the SEC people who viewed porn instead of policing the market?
> ...



HAHAHAHAHAHAZHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


you are fucking insane.

Do you understand what the function of the SEC is?


----------



## del (Apr 26, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



i'm pretty sure it's not to pass legislation, financial reform or otherwise.

you were saying, fuckchop?

bonus: george w bush was arrested for drunk driving in maine- feel free to use this little nugget in your next *response*.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Terry (Apr 26, 2010)

https://www.usaa.com/inet/ent_blogs...wsroom&postkey=usaa_ceo_robles_please_contact


----------



## del (Apr 26, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



laura bush was in a fatal car accident as a teenager.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

The crewmen in the TBF Avenger from which George HW Bush escaped were killed...Coincidence?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 26, 2010)

Does this mean they are going to vote.......NO?

I'm shocked


----------



## del (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> The crewmen in the TBF Avenger from which George HW Bush escaped were killed...Coincidence?



they actually escaped into a secret tunnel and meet with him every year at bohemian grove. don't believe me? google it.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 26, 2010)

YoungLefty said:


> How stupid are these people? Do they _really_ want to go home to their constituents and explain why they stood against reforming wall street? I guess if it means saying "NO!" to the dems, they are all for it. Can't wait to see how this plays out in NOV.



I'd say that depends on the reasons they have for stalling this bill.

If they can come out and make their case that this is once again just another attempt by the Democrats to secure control over another industry then they might be in good shape.  If they come out looking like obstructionists without good reason they will have once again shot themselves in the foot.

I have not read anything about the bill so I don't know what it says, but I have to tell you that I am somewhat concerned about giving government more control.

Immie


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



It does matter who pressured em, it matters a lot.
What matters even more is the fact that the fed could be pressured to keep rates artificially low.
Just proves that "the Market" is pretty much myth now.


----------



## maineman (Apr 26, 2010)

I hope that the GOP senators DO successfully block financial reform.  I am quite content to have them be known as the party that cares more about Wall Street than it does about Main Street.  Go for it.  Protect Goldman Sachs at all costs.  See how THAT plays in November.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Apr 26, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



If the market were a myth then our economy would be even worse off.  It's those small instances where the market can operate that drive this economy, not the government or Fed.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Agreed the market still has some influence, just not very much.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 26, 2010)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/114927-sec-under-cox.html


----------



## Nonelitist (Apr 26, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to the "Party of No"..... the "Party of NOvember".
> ...




That was the last election.

People are ticked at Dems this election.  Obama is turning off the moderates in huge numbers and he is firing up the conservatives.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...





Yes and that might actually work for you if the right was not so busy shooting itself in it's own feet.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

Given that 40%+ of voters self-identify as Conservatives, with another 40% as moderate, the GOP opposition to the growth of Big Government is going to serve them much better than Obamanomics will the Dems.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

Yeah and 51% said they were conservatives when they re-elected Bush.


----------



## del (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Given that 40%+ of voters self-identify as Conservatives, with another 40% as moderate, the GOP opposition to the growth of Big Government is going to serve them much better than Obamanomics will the Dems.



i'd agree with you if the GOP's record wasn't in such stark opposition to its rhetoric.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

del said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Given that 40%+ of voters self-identify as Conservatives, with another 40% as moderate, the GOP opposition to the growth of Big Government is going to serve them much better than Obamanomics will the Dems.
> ...





It's a matter of scale and the time horizon.   The GOP spending binge over the past few years is appalling - but it pales in comparison to the Dems' more recent conflagration.

The GOP taking a stand against ObamaCare, the Stimulus, Cap & Trade, etc. provides a better case for voters than to continue with the Obama Big Government programs.

And not all GOP candidates will be incumbents.  Those running against sitting Dems will have a "fresh start" appeal as well.

I'm not saying this is going to be easy for the GOP, but they do have an opportunity to regain seats in both Houses do to the way the Dems have way overplayed their hand.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Yeah and 51% said they were conservatives when they re-elected Bush.




A little historical perspective wouldn't hurt:

The Financial Crisis came to a head shortly before the 2008 election, which would have hurt which ever party held the Presidency.  And the GOP ran a very weak candidate who is hardly a real conservative.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Pffffft!

They'd be _*all for*_ that crap if the goober writing and supporting the bills had an (R) by their name.

Forgotten NCLB, Medicare D and the amnesty bill so soon?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Given that 40%+ of voters self-identify as Conservatives, with another 40% as moderate, the GOP opposition to the growth of Big Government is going to serve them much better than Obamanomics will the Dems.



Yes, if the stop the Party of No chatter.

Yes, if they come up with a reputable leader.

Yes, if they come up with a solid economic plan that resonates with the voters.

Yes, if they can sell that plan in a calm, solid voice.

If they don't, no, they will get their butts kicked again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




Not along their current path, they don't.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...




Absolutely not.   I'm just pointing out the relative aspect between the current GOP and Dems in Congress.

The big question is:  Is the public more angry about what happened under Bush's watch or about what has happened since Obama took office?

It's not giving the Bush era a pass to point out that tripling the deficit is not an improvement.  Nor is expanding government from 20% of GDP to 30%+ of GDP an improvement.  Nor is defacto nationalizing 1/6 of the economy.  Nor is 15M unemployed...

The latter metric is the most important influence upon 2010, imo.


----------



## del (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



the GOP needs to do a much better job of publicizing what their solutions are for the problems we face. just saying no won't cut it, imo, although in some cases (e.g. cap & trade) the dems have provided a solution looking for a problem. i agree with the gist of your post, though. if scott brown can win here, the reps should be able to cut into the dem majority significantly if they act intelligently.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah and 51% said they were conservatives when they re-elected Bush.
> ...



Palin.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

The Dems' desperate attacks on the Tea Part Movement indicate that they recognize their vulnerability.   Agreed that the GOP need to act intelligently and articulate solutions.  The do have some (i.e., the health care reforms the offered up during Obama's Kabuki Summit, which the One ignored).


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


I remember capitulation of 1995 all too well.

The GOP has to both shut up _*and*_ put up before I'll ever vote for one of those sham artists again.


----------



## elvis (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



what if it meant the Left had to live with Palin as President for four years?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

Yeah the ex Bushies and their Tea Party "movement" are of great concern, almost as much concern as they are a source of ammusement.


Same crowd different name.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

The Dems' attacks are not desperate, despite your hope; yes, the GOP needs to act intelligently; no, the GOP health care reforms were far too late and much too less to run on.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

elvis said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Nope...I want results, not amusement.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

elvis said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



That would mean that the USA is doomed if we cannot come up with anyone better than Palin from either party.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



We can argue economics until the cows come home, but I agree that the GOP needs a reasonable, conservative program, then have the nerve to stick to it.


----------



## Maple (Apr 26, 2010)

Dante said:


> > Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, predicted all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay...a deal.
> >
> > Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn't expect the bill...would go forward. "We want to make sure that they don't have...financial services... health care," McConnell said on " Fox News Sunday."
> 
> ...



If it doesn't address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it's a worthless peice of crap. They are the duds that started the recent meltdown with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in charge of the over-seeing. It was the 1991 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT that started this whole snow ball a-rollin, forcing banks to MAKE HIGH RISK MORTGAGE LOANS or be red- lined for future growth and development.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> I remember capitulation of 1995 all too well.
> 
> The GOP has to both shut up _*and*_ put up before I'll ever vote for one of those sham artists again.




That's the horn of the dilemma, isn't it?   To boycott the GOP and cede the country to the Obama led Dems - or to hold one's nose and try to find some members of the former for which one can vote in good conscience.  I'm not convinced they have learned their lesson.  If anything, they are a good object lesson that Power Corrupts.   But I'd rather maintain some hope - the alternative is too depressing.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I remember capitulation of 1995 all too well.
> ...


Don't care...We'll end up in the same place either way.

I'd just as soon cut to the chase and be done with it.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> We can argue economics until the cows come home, but I agree that the GOP needs a reasonable, conservative program, then have the nerve to stick to it.


Shuddap, you poseur.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> Don't care...We'll end up in the same place either way.
> 
> I'd just as soon cut to the chase and be done with it.




I don't want to live as a statist slave.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

Corporate slaves are much better off?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Dude said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We can argue economics until the cows come home, but I agree that the GOP needs a reasonable, conservative program, then have the nerve to stick to it.
> ...



I keep forgetting, rightwad, that you are not Republican, but I am, and I agree with you on that point.  Don't like it because you, a loon, is right on occassion, tuff luck!


----------



## Oddball (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Don't care...We'll end up in the same place either way.
> ...


You already are....The horse is out of the barn.

The sooner the whole corporate/gubmint crony capitalist cabal collapses the better.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Corporate slaves are much better off?




What corporations can put one in jail?

One is always free to change jobs.  Changing countries is not quite as easy.

It's also quite offensive to equate getting paid for work with a statist regime infringing upon one's liberty.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Corporate slaves are much better off?
> ...





LOL, Corporations operate jails.
They have the govt give them customers.  What better deal?


----------



## boedicca (Apr 26, 2010)

Please provide any evidence that a corporation disciplined an employee by incarcerating that person.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Please provide any evidence that a corporation disciplined an employee by incarcerating that person.



Corproate lobbyists?

In any case study Monsanto and genetically modified Soy beans.
Mega Corps prefer to just use the courts to shut you down.
I have no problem with individial small corps.
within a few years if you raise soybeans in the USA you WILL buy your seeds from Monsanto because of cross pollentation of their crops with the unmodified ones.

An ex Monsanto lawyer now in the supreme court enabled this and penned the majority decision.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 26, 2010)

Quote: Originally Posted by boedicca  Please provide any evidence that a corporation disciplined an employee by incarcerating that person.

The female employee who complained about rape and the company, Halliburton, held her against her will?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Dems' attacks are not desperate, despite your hope; yes, the GOP needs to act intelligently; no, the GOP health care reforms were far too late and much too less to run on.



Good thing you weren't advising Sen Scott Brown (R-MA "Kennedy Seat")


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 28, 2010)

Update:

The GOP has caved on blocking the financial reform bill.  I guess someone dope-slapped some sense into them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 28, 2010)

Some GOP senators were holding out for perks in their states.  Not admirable but something many legislators of all parties do.


----------



## Meister (Apr 28, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> *Some GOP senators were holding out for perks in their states.*  Not admirable but something many legislators of all parties do.



Link?  or, is this just your left wing drivel?


----------



## Meister (Apr 28, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Update:
> 
> The GOP has caved on blocking the financial reform bill.  I guess someone dope-slapped some sense into them.



Geeze, when the obstruct your all over the GOP because they are the party of no.  When they do the right thing and vote for a debate, they cave huh?

Spoken like a left wing loon, ny.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 28, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Update:
> 
> The GOP has caved on blocking the financial reform bill.  I guess someone dope-slapped some sense into them.



Did you really expect anything different? 

If so, you have not been paying attention to politics for long.



JakeStarkey said:


> Some GOP senators were holding out for perks in their states.  Not admirable but something many legislators of all parties do.



Guess they learned something from the way that Nancy got Health Care Reform passed.

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Update:
> ...



I gave them credit for acquiring some sense, what more do you want?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 28, 2010)

Did the entire GOP representation vote for debate now, or was it just a few?  If the former, then Meister is the loon here.


----------



## Meister (Apr 28, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Did the entire GOP representation vote for debate now, or was it just a few?  If the former, then Meister is the loon here.



I'm still waiting for your link to the GOP holding out for perks.
Jake....everyone knows that your the board loon....live it, breath it, and embrace it.


----------



## Dante (May 5, 2010)

Dante said:


> > Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, predicted all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay...a deal.
> >
> > Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn't expect the bill...would go forward. "We want to make sure that they don't have...financial services... health care," McConnell said on " Fox News Sunday."
> 
> ...



How are they doing? Has the GOP done anything---anything at all, to make life better for the average American?


----------



## rightwinger (May 14, 2010)

Does this mean they intend to vote NO???

I am shocked


----------



## boedicca (May 14, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by boedicca  Please provide any evidence that a corporation disciplined an employee by incarcerating that person.
> 
> The female employee who complained about rape and the company, Halliburton, held her against her will?




Compare that with the number of people in prison in the U.S.   There is also an alternate view that the company was trying to protect her from further assault in a foreign country.

See the difference?


----------



## boedicca (May 14, 2010)

A Financial Reform Bill which doesn't include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a sincere effort.

Just sayin'.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2010)

boedicca said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by boedicca  Please provide any evidence that a corporation disciplined an employee by incarcerating that person.
> ...


No dif, sis.  The company did not have the right to hold her against her will, period.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2010)

boedicca said:


> A Financial Reform Bill which doesn't include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a sincere effort.
> 
> Just sayin'.



100% on point.  The problem is that Dem Bill Clinton and Republican Congress created the fiasco.  Both parties have to correct the mess in a bi-partisan, responsible solution.

That is not going to happen.


----------



## EriktheRed (May 14, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > A Financial Reform Bill which doesn't include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a sincere effort.
> ...



Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold my breath for them bringing back Glass-Steagall, in particular.


----------



## Dante (May 15, 2010)

Dante said:


> > Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, predicted all 41 Republican senators would vote to delay...a deal.
> >
> > Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn't expect the bill...would go forward. "We want to make sure that they don't have...financial services... health care," McConnell said on " Fox News Sunday."
> 
> ...



How's the party of 'NO' doin ' these days?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > A Financial Reform Bill which doesn't include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a sincere effort.
> ...


Not while many of those responsible for it are in positions of power in congress, and those who see a benefit from maintaining it are in the executve branch.

That very well may change starting this year as the anti-incumbent wave starts to crest.


----------



## The T (May 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


 
There won't be many if any at all 'surfing' on that wave. It will consume many courtesy of the people whom are fed up with their government.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



The comment about the executive branch is only your opinion with no evidence, so who cares?

The vote will be anti incumbent, not anti party.  Changes are and will continue to be made in the various parties at the primary level.  You are right that new faces will appear, but the party numbers will remain close to what they are now.

In other words, the Dems will still control Congress.


----------



## rdean (May 15, 2010)

What do Republicans know about reform?

They know "deregulation".  The reason behind the problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2010)

Well, the GOP started it with TR more than a century ago.  Conservation and national parks and the FDA and the Hepburn Act and meat inspection are just a few of many of the GOP contributions to regulation.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The vote will be for fiscal responsibility and governmental reform as well as anti-incumbent.   I don't see many democrats on the fiscal responsibility bandwagon.  They're all protecting their sacred cows.

And as for the executive branch.. who appointed a tax cheat to run the IRS?  Who's trying to use the tea party movement to regulate free speech on the internet?  Who has used his advisers to attempt to boycott and shut down the businesses of individual citizens (Van Jones)?  Never let a good crisis go to waste I believe the phrase was.  And they sure as shit are doing their best to maximize the crisis that pop up if not manufacture a few more.

As for TR, don't mistake consumer protection for progressive advocacy that we see today.  I'm not happy with TR in many ways because he introduced the first little hints of nannystatism that exploded under Wilson to the point where it took 2 and a half presidential terms to undo most of it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2010)

Big Fitz obviously does not understand political philosophy and political definitions.  Anti incumbency will affect folks running within their parties, not the parties themselves.  Absolutely no evidence exists for that.

Please don't be so misunderstanding that that you fail to realize that the American electoral mainstream still hates the GOP for what it did to the country.  They won't be looking at Clinton or the Republican congress back then, they will be comparing the Bush years with the first two of BHO.  The GOP comes off very badly in comparison.


----------



## The T (May 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Big Fitz obviously does not understand political philosophy and political definitions. Anti incumbency will affect folks running within their parties, not the parties themselves. Absolutely no evidence exists for that.
> 
> Please don't be so misunderstanding that that you fail to realize that the American electoral mainstream still hates the GOP for what it did to the country. They won't be looking at Clinton or the Republican congress back then, they will be comparing the Bush years with the first two of BHO. The GOP comes off very badly in comparison.


 
Calm thyself *You Political Partisan HACK*

He understands more than you understand without you removing your blinders...you havent taken the time to read his posts...

I state the contrary to your assertion. The PEOPLE regardless of whatever affiliation they may be registered are UPSET at their government...and it crosses party lines...all stripes of the spectrum.

It puts _politicians _on NOTICE that we aren't playing their games any longer, and you had better play straight with us or we'll fire you too...

*That is the mentality at play here. And YES it affects the parties across the spectrum. 

Jake? Please continue to spout your nonsense. It is YOU whom refuses to take off the partisan blinders and fails to root out the weeds that have infested our Republic.

The Games are *OVER*. The people are pissed off. They've had enough. You roll your dice on a monopoly board with fewer players as if nothing is wrong while saying the GOP is at fault. Wake up _poseur._


----------



## EriktheRed (May 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> ...the American electoral mainstream still hates the GOP for what it did to the country.  They won't be looking at Clinton or the Republican congress back then, they will be comparing the Bush years with the first two of BHO.



Eh, I don't know about that. People have been shown to have short memories.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ...the American electoral mainstream still hates the GOP for what it did to the country.  They won't be looking at Clinton or the Republican congress back then, they will be comparing the Bush years with the first two of BHO.
> ...



This fall will tell.  I have no doubt that the Dems will have unitary control of the Presidency and Congress the day after elections.  Because the GOP has not learned its lesson collectively, the Dems then will ram the largest "social justice" program down our throats since LBJ's 'Great Society.'  And you saw how much effect we had getting rid of that.  Not!


----------



## American Horse (May 15, 2010)

YoungLefty said:


> How stupid are these people? Do they _really_ want to go home to their constituents and explain why they stood against reforming wall street? I guess if it means saying "NO!" to the dems, they are all for it. Can't wait to see how this plays out in NOV.


How can a so called "reform bill" be taken seriously which does not once mention Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac or in any way change their status?  Truth is, this bill being pushed by Dodd _ETAL_ is to sanitize his own reputation before he is unwillingly removed from the Senate by an electorate that sees through his duplicity.

The bill is an exercise in denial, is misdirected, and will harm the economy more than it benefits it.


----------



## Dante (May 16, 2010)

rdean said:


> What do Republicans know about reform?
> 
> They know "deregulation".  The reason behind the problem.



or ignoring regulatory responsibilities.


----------



## Dante (May 16, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Well, the GOP started it with TR more than a century ago.  Conservation and national parks and the FDA and the Hepburn Act and meat inspection are just a few of many of the GOP contributions to regulation.



and today's GOP is trying to undo all TR did.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2010)

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the GOP started it with TR more than a century ago.  Conservation and national parks and the FDA and the Hepburn Act and meat inspection are just a few of many of the GOP contributions to regulation.
> ...



The far right of the party, unfortunately, is trying to do just that.  I believe that thinking GOPers (my hand is up in that group) and the rest of thinking America will 'school' the right on the differences between progressivism and socialism.

Never have I seen such a fairly large group of Americans (maybe 20mm) led by demagoguery as the far right is today.  At least not since the demagoguery of Joseph McCarthy almost sixty years ago.  What a loser he was, and anyone who tries to revise his history is a loser also, a very lousy excuse for an American.


----------



## Dante (May 16, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



There are very few GOP leaders who back TR programs and regulations. Hardly a condemnation of the far right...maybe a condemnation of the right in general. And that is sad.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2010)

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I think you are confusing the social value conservatives as corporatists and neo-cons as well.  In the south that is certainly not the case.  They are distrustful of big and small business, will not be stampeded into overseas adventures for some time, but those hot-button issues of gay marriage, abortion, etc. stampede them to vote for Republicans, they same way gay activists, etc., generally vote Democratic.


----------



## Dante (May 16, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



GOP leaders today are the anti TR leaders. The GOP was not always happy with TR. List things that TR accomplished and list what the GOP leadership raves and rants against.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2010)

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You are talking about the current group of perverted Reaganite/Palinista leaders that will be gone within five years.  The base of the GOP is beginning to wake up to the leaderships' lies.


----------



## Dante (May 17, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, yeah...and Christ's second coming is right around the corner too.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 17, 2010)

Dante, if you believe in "us v. them", then you have given up on America.


----------



## midcan5 (May 17, 2010)

"On both sides of the argument over deregulation it is agreed that financial reform is both needed and warranted. The reasons for it, however, are different depending on the party in question, as is the shape and extent that reform will take."

A History of Financial Deregulation


"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes


----------



## Dante (May 17, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante, if you believe in "us v. them", then you have given up on America.



what is it with you people? I have said consistently for years, that I do not view differences as an opening to view opponents as enemies. 

I do think a spade must be called a spade. When left wingers and progressives and almost the whole right considers compromise to be anathema---I know an enemy is challenging my core principles.


----------



## Dante (May 17, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "On both sides of the argument over deregulation it is agreed that financial reform is both needed and warranted. The reasons for it, however, are different depending on the party in question, as is the shape and extent that reform will take."
> 
> A History of Financial Deregulation
> 
> ...



only partly true. there is opposition today that centers on narrow political gain and party positioning for power grabs. there are far too many _go along_ politicians today, who will and do, put power over principle, and what is good for the nation as a whole. 


witness the party of NO. witness the anti-Bush hysteria. witness the Clinton impeachment.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 17, 2010)

Wall St. reform and regulation has about 80% public support.  The Republicans are getting tsunamied on this one.


----------



## Dante (May 17, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Wall St. reform and regulation has about 80% public support.  The Republicans are getting tsunamied on this one.



We shall see. The elections are not always about what people want. The people often complain about what they have created. 

that said, I do distrust the GOP to do the right thing, more than I distrust the Dems to do so.


----------

