Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They are taken seriously. They influence decisions and elections, however they do not run the House and the House can pass bills all day long and if Harry Reid refuses to vote on the the budget doesn't happen. Blaming the shut down on Republicans, and especially the TEA party is highly polemic and partisan on your part.We need a
Great point. If the Tea Party ran with something like that and on smart use of public money, instead of absolutism and shutting down half the freakin' government, they'd be taken much more seriously.
They are taken seriously. They influence decisions and elections, however they do not run the House and the House can pass bills all day long and if Harry Reid refuses to vote on the the budget doesn't happen. Blaming the shut down on Republicans, and especially the TEA party is highly polemic and partisan on your part.We need a
Great point. If the Tea Party ran with something like that and on smart use of public money, instead of absolutism and shutting down half the freakin' government, they'd be taken much more seriously.
So knock off the both parties do it, I'm above it rhetoric.
1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?
2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?
It was the completely unregulated financial derivatives which were the cause of the crash. And the SEC voted unanimously in 2004 to waive the capital reserve requirements for the 5 biggest broker-dealers.What they need to do is deregulate the banks,
It was the completely unregulated financial derivatives which were the cause of the crash. And the SEC voted unanimously in 2005 to waive the capital reserve requirements for the 5 biggest broker-dealers.What they need to do is deregulate the banks,
I don't claim to be unbiased, unlike you. I have decided on a bias due to my experiences and observations. TEA party types want fiscal responsibility and in some cases, the elimination of departments. I am absolutely onboard with that. I'm not aware of the movement wanting to shut down Medicare, SS or Medicaid, they want it fixed. They can't continue the way it is.Where did I "blame the shut down on Republicans"? My point was that there are plenty of people in the Tea Party who regularly talk about shutting down various departments in the government, who talk about shutting down Medicare, Medicaid and/or social security. You can pretend that doesn't happen, that's your call, but it's the reason (along with the help of people like Beck, Bachmann and Palin) the movement is not taken seriously, except by those in it.
You're committed to it, fine. But at least admit what people in the movement are saying.
And "polemic"? As compared to whom here, you?
I don't claim to be unbiased, unlike you. I have decided on a bias due to my experiences and observations. TEA party types want fiscal responsibility and in some cases, the elimination of departments. I am absolutely onboard with that. I'm not aware of the movement wanting to shut down Medicare, SS or Medicaid, they want it fixed. They can't continue the way it is.Where did I "blame the shut down on Republicans"? My point was that there are plenty of people in the Tea Party who regularly talk about shutting down various departments in the government, who talk about shutting down Medicare, Medicaid and/or social security. You can pretend that doesn't happen, that's your call, but it's the reason (along with the help of people like Beck, Bachmann and Palin) the movement is not taken seriously, except by those in it.
You're committed to it, fine. But at least admit what people in the movement are saying.
And "polemic"? As compared to whom here, you?
The evidence is that you are wrong, for reasons already mentioned. They are taken seriously. The fact that the left works tirelessly to demonize them is further evidence.
I haven't seen you use the word unbiased buy that's been your message. You always bring up the lefty talking points so.....I've never claimed to be unbiased. Ever. You're welcome to show me where and when I said that.
The Left loves bringing up Palin & Bachmann & the Tea Party for any reason they can come up with because they're easy targets.
But again, I realize you support them, so you take them seriously.
How about we just get a slate of candidates chosen by a committee and we vote for one of them? Sort of like the old Soviet Union, which is what Dems want to emulate.We need a groundswell for public financing of elections, so that politicians will be "owned" by us instead of special interests. The Tea Party could be worthwhile if they took this up instead of believing the propaganda that it's just another manner of government control. I don't see how allowing more voices to be heard, instead of just the party-approved, would be a bad thing.
Great point. If the Tea Party ran with something like that and on smart use of public money, instead of absolutism and shutting down half the freakin' government, they'd be taken much more seriously.
And more importantly, they'd be providing a great service.
.
Bullshit and bullshit.It was the completely unregulated financial derivatives which were the cause of the crash. And the SEC voted unanimously in 2004 to waive the capital reserve requirements for the 5 biggest broker-dealers.What they need to do is deregulate the banks,
Bullshit. Totally unprovable. Every time there is a scandal there is call for more regulation. And then the next scandal or disaster comes along with calls for even more regulation.It was the completely unregulated financial derivatives which were the cause of the crash. And the SEC voted unanimously in 2005 to waive the capital reserve requirements for the 5 biggest broker-dealers.What they need to do is deregulate the banks,
Yup. Proper regulation of CMO's, CDS's, mortgage brokers and the ratings agencies would have completely changed the landscape.
.
How about we just get a slate of candidates chosen by a committee and we vote for one of them? Sort of like the old Soviet Union, which is what Dems want to emulate.
That's typically juvenile, short sighted and myopic. Just what we've come to expect from you.How about we just get a slate of candidates chosen by a committee and we vote for one of them? Sort of like the old Soviet Union, which is what Dems want to emulate.
That's idiotic, but I've come to expect nothing less from you. You're pushing the lie that public financing means the government picks the candidates. I envision money being divvied up equally after a round of open media events and primaries. That's "the people" picking the candidates, not a committee or party.
.
Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".
Two questions:
1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?
2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?
.
1. Those financial institutions own our politicians.
2. Those financial institutions own our politicians.
That's typically juvenile, short sighted and myopic. Just what we've come to expect from you.
The incumbent gets free news exposure so unless you are planning on controlling the media too that wont happen.
Besides, you are denying people the right to vote with their wallets by supporting the candidates of their choice. That is a guaranteed by the 1A so unless you want to repeal that too, it wont happen.
Bullshit and bullshit.It was the completely unregulated financial derivatives which were the cause of the crash. And the SEC voted unanimously in 2004 to waive the capital reserve requirements for the 5 biggest broker-dealers.What they need to do is deregulate the banks,
Derivatives were certainly regulated.
OK so youadmit your proposal is unworkable because the incumbent will always have the advantage.That's typically juvenile, short sighted and myopic. Just what we've come to expect from you.
The incumbent gets free news exposure so unless you are planning on controlling the media too that wont happen.
Besides, you are denying people the right to vote with their wallets by supporting the candidates of their choice. That is a guaranteed by the 1A so unless you want to repeal that too, it wont happen.
Can't do anything about news being reported, but the money part can be remedied. At present we have special interests that don't care about parties at all, but support incumbents because a sure thing is better than a maybe. The supposed violation of the 1st amendment would be solved by amending the amendment to say that money isn't speech. Candidates should be judged on their own speech, not the ability of their supporters to fund that speech.
