On CNBC the Deaniac said this, "I think we’ve had quite enough capitalism in the last eight years.”
So what's the alternative?
|
On CNBC the Deaniac said this, "I think we’ve had quite enough capitalism in the last eight years.”
So what's the alternative?
No one has ever accused him being shy about speaking candidly .
Ever notice how the Dems are always anti-capitalism after they have gotten theirs ?
The alternative is what we are beginning to see now... what has been called Marxism, Socialism, and most recently Statism (by Mark Levin).Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We're getting the alternative... and it sucks.
If they said what they wanted to do during the campaigns there would be a lot fewer of them in power now.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
But you can can't say they're really socialists at heart, it's not allowed. Well, now you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Indeed . Screaming Dean did not resurrect his career by subjecting himself to the voters evaluation.Quote:
If they said what they wanted to do during the campaigns there would be a lot fewer of them in power now
He can afford to be forthright because he is not accountable.
Dean is crazy,
Ozzy Osbourne's Crazy Train (Dean's Aboard) (mp3 download)Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviston
Hello wingers:
If the dufus hadn't broken it soooo badly, there wouldn't be kooks in there now... You have nothing but yourself to blame.
excon
So by your reasoning it's OK to have kooks running the country?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Dean ain't running nothing but his mouth.
excon
So you've changed your mind already and there aren't "kooks in there now?"Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They're as kooky as your normal Democrat would be with a blank check.
But, some neglected things need fixing soooo bad, that it's going to take a few bucks. Contrary to you folks, I'm willing to wait before I make my judgment...
For example, in my view, single payer health care would increase care while reducing costs. Yes, I think the insurance and pharama cabal is ripping us off that much. That savings alone, could more than pay for the rest of his stuff.
Could, I say. I didn't say would.
excon
Excon,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Not only are there a bunch of Democrat kooks in the White House right now, there are a whole bunch of them OUTSIDE the White House too.
For instance, there seem to be a bunch of kooks out there who think that the way to fix overspending is to spend more, the way to fix a budget deficit is to quadruple it in 2 months, and the way to fix the national debt is to spend $10 trillion dollars we don't have by borrowing it from future generations.
Kind of like the idea that we should kill all the whales now, and we'll just bring 'em back from the past when we need them in the future, just like on Star Trek. In future generations, we'll go back in time and bring back the money to pay for all the crap Obama is spending money on.
You wouldn't happen to be one of those kooks who thinks that "it's gonna take a few bucks" that we don't have... that doesn't even exist yet... to fix the country, are you?
Nah. Couldn't be.
Elliot
I agree that there are kooks on both sides, but criticizing his economic policies without having having the slighest idea of what economics is makes you sound like akookQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
If you knew Elliot's backround you would know how ridiculous this statement is.Quote:
but criticizing his economic policies without having having the slighest idea of what economics is makes you sound like akook
ridiculous - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online DictionaryQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Eagerly awaiting Elliot's smack down...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare81
OK NK...
if you knew Elliot's backround you would know how laughable this statement is.
I'll tell you what's laughable, the kook in the White House. After proposing a 12 percent increase in the budget, spending another $787 billion in TARP money and proposing $635 billion off-budget in health care reform, the President offered this as his reason for his massive one-half of one percent in budget cuts:
Quote:
"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem."
Dare,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare81
Leaving aside the BA that I earned in Economics, I have 15 years of real-life experience as a financial analyst for several different banks, including international banks. I deal with economics for a living. It is what I have trained in all my life (or at least the last 20 years of it) and what I do to put food on the table for my family.
I daresay that I have quite a bit more experience in economics and finance than you do, considering that what I do for a living is give economic and financial advice and protect financial institutions from economic and financial risks.
Now... given that information, what is it that YOU believe economics is all about? Please, I would enjoy the breadth of your experience in economics. I would like to know exactly what part of what Obama, Dean, and the rest of the far left have been doing at the economic level it is that you support and why. Perhaps you can educate me and teach me something that I haven't learned about economics yet that you happen to know.
At the very least, it oughta be good for a laugh.
Elliot
NK, do you really want to go there?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Go where? That misspelling is common. I'm just trying to help.
Oh it was a spelling error. I'm sure I provide a wealth of them . My administrator probably would not go along with a down load of ieSpell.
My apologies, Karma. I thought that you were challenging my economics background, as Dare was, and that you were stating that his comment WASN'T ridiculous. I misunderstood your post. Again, I apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Elliot
Hello El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
What I don't understand, is how you could have such an extensive economic background, and still get it wrong.
You and I don't disagree on the economic ideals. I agree that if left to their own devices, business would act in their own interests, thereby benefiting all those who come into contact with them...
The key to my phrase is "left to their own devices.." In truth, business found that it's easier to rig the game by lobbying congress to make it easier for them to make money, and the congress obliged. No longer do they have to provide goods and services.. They just have to do their accounting right...
Under the new rules, they got "too big to fail".
Therefore, the game has to be DE-rigged for a while to prevent them from ever doing that again. Once that happens, they can go back to being good corporate citizens supplying what we need.
You seem to think we should leave them alone and they'll never do this to us again...
Bwa, ha ha ha.
excon
Businesses only lobbied Congress when Congress decided that it had the authority to control business. Without that little event, business would never have lobbied to Congress for anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
However, all of the Banking Lobbies that I know of and am a member of have been lobbying AGAINST the Community Reinvestment Act for 3 decades. So exactly what did financial institutions lobby for that caused the current crisis? We've been lobbying AGAINST the very governmental programs that caused this mess in the first place.
Which just proves that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, excon. You have simply decided that the Reps are wrong, and facts be damned.
Elliot
Hello Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
From Wikkipedia:
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.
Some provisions such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
That Gramm, would be Phil Gramm, Republican who said that we're not really in a recession, we're just a nation of whiners. If John McCain would have won, Gramm would be our treasury secretary.
Bwa, ha ha ha... I really do know stuff after all.
excon
OK Bigshot.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
How does the repeal of Glass-Steigal connect to the downfall of the credit markets and real estate? (Hint: there is no connection between the two.)
You have been hearing left-wing talking points about Glass-Steigal without any understanding of what affect it has or doesn't have on the credit markets. I know that the lefties would LIKE for there to be a connection between them so that they can deflect their own guilt on the subject, but it just ain't so.
So I ask again, what did "big businesses" lobby for that killed the economy?
As for what Gramm said... he's right. Did you hear the woman that, upon the election of Obama, said that she wouldn't have to worry about paying her mortgage, or putting gas in her car? Or the guy that said to Obama at one of his town meetings that he had lost his job, and what was the government going to do for him? The nation IS made up of a bunch of whiners... enough of them that they voted for a guy who they thought would give them whatever it is they are whining for. Gramm was right. We ARE a nation of whiners, and Conservatives want to change that back to the way it was BEFORE we were a bunch of whiners.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 PM. |