• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

MaggieD said:
View attachment 67116489

It was only a matter of time 'til someone pointed this out.
Click to expand...

This is like showing a picture of a tea party and their stop government spending signs, and showing the road they drove in on to get the event. It's juvenile and misses the point. It is simple soundbites for simple people.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Of course. It was a partisan effort, coordinated with the incoming Obama camp via the Senate. I never said it was not. What I stated was a fact-based opinion to counter the absurd notion that Republicans are somehow more "pro-bailout" than Democrats. The Tea Party is quite opposed to such bailouts.
Click to expand...

Nope. TARP passed before the elections. Bush signed it a full month before the elections. Indeed, the Tea Party is opposed to bail outs. The main parties are only opposed to them depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Cut the crap. I explained that my notion of "failure" is to not cherry pick. To not have government pick the winners and losers. Which is what Obama has done with the auto-bailouts, closing of dealerships, subsidies to green energy, excessive regulation, etc.
Click to expand...

It's what the government did with TARP also. You are either for bailing out failure or not.

And don't bitch to me because Fannie and Freddie are GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises). I am not for such nonsense, but they didn't ask me when they created them, then expanded them. To not back their debt now would be to have the government default. In many ways they are similar to us being on teh hook for Social Security and Medicare. All buy-now, pay-later schemes that mortgaged the future. The best we can do is to not repeat such stupidity moving forward.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to defend them. I'm saying they must be figured into the losses we are stuck with concerning TARP. It's also not the best we can do. Legally we can force those who put the fraudulent loans on the books in the first place, take them back.
 
Redress said:
This is like showing a picture of a tea party and their stop government spending signs, and showing the road they drove in on to get the event. It's juvenile and misses the point. It is simple soundbites for simple people.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, and that's probably the case.

But something still doesn't click. Tea Party may have opposed government spending, but the implication was they would be taxed less, and then THEY could decide to fund that road. They did not oppose working to create the things they enjoy, only the government coercion part.

These protests appear to be much more anti-1%. That of course, carries no such saving grace, it's simply discriminatory fist pounding (so far) aimed at pushing the national debt burden onto people who didn't cause the national debt...
 
Mach said:
I hear ya, and that's probably the case.

But something still doesn't click. Tea Party may have opposed government spending, but the implication was they would be taxed less, and then THEY could decide to fund that road. They did not oppose working to create the things they enjoy, only the government coercion part.

These protests appear to be much more anti-1%. That of course, carries no such saving grace, it's simply discriminatory fist pounding (so far) aimed at pushing the national debt burden onto people who didn't cause the national debt...
Click to expand...

The reason, I believe is that the real anger is aimed at the way the system is set up where regular people are not seeing economic gains that keep up with their increased productivity. The 1% is simply a symbol of that larger problem.
 
megaprogman said:
The reason, I believe is that the real anger is aimed at the way the system is set up where regular people are not seeing economic gains that keep up with their increased productivity. The 1% is simply a symbol of that larger problem.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's just that they don't want to accept that they are the bottom 10%. Gains are never good for failed investments, be they part of a hedge fund, or a person failing in the job market.
 
Mach said:
Or maybe it's just that they don't want to accept that they are the bottom 10%. Gains are never good for failed investments, be they part of a hedge fund, or a person failing in the job market.
Click to expand...

Really, the two issues are the same thing. People are where they are because the system broke in the 80s and we are now realizing how much it costs to maintain the illusion of a nonbroken system (basis of our current debt problem).
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
Which is not how it played out. Southern Democrats, such as Byrd, Gore (Al's dad), Fulbright, etc., did not become Republicans. The vast majority of "Dixiecrats" stayed Democrat, and it was the Republicans that gave LBJ the support he needed to pass his civil rights bill. Look it all up.
Click to expand...

I did.....

from the article on the 1964 Civil Rights Act from Wikipedia

By party
The original House version:[12]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[13]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:[12]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
[edit]
Click to expand...

The Democratic party supplied more YES voted to pass the bill than the Republicans did.
The Republicans voted in higher percentages for the bill than Dems did.

The votes to pass the bill were truly bipartisan and it could not have been done without support from both parties.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I was one Conservative who held my nose and supported TARP. It worked, and almost all that money has been paid back. But I would have been fine with letting all things fail, to include such as GM, and keeping UI at one year max.

.
Click to expand...

Ah yes. It is the rightwing libertarian desire to weaken and even destroy labor unions and the destruction of General Motors would have further that extremist goal. Save the banks - save Wall Street - save corporate America even if it means holding your nose as you claimed you did - but smile from ear to ear and scream loudly for the destruction of the American labor movement.
 
Mach said:
What significant political movement wants to literally abolish public schools?
Retirement? (at most they want to keep it private)
Health care? (at most they want to keep it private)

.
Click to expand...

that would be the libertarian right wing which has now captured the Republican party.
 
Mach said:
I hear ya, and that's probably the case.

But something still doesn't click. Tea Party may have opposed government spending, but the implication was they would be taxed less, and then THEY could decide to fund that road. They did not oppose working to create the things they enjoy, only the government coercion part.

These protests appear to be much more anti-1%. That of course, carries no such saving grace, it's simply discriminatory fist pounding (so far) aimed at pushing the national debt burden onto people who didn't cause the national debt...
Click to expand...

No, that is just retarded libertarian bull****, which most tea partiers are not.
 
Voltaire X said:
The reason most people wouldn't care about lobbying reform is that they don't understand it. They don't know how big of an impact lobbying has on our government and that it almost always comes back to hurt them. There needs to be more transparency about how lobbying works and the effects that it has. These issues need to be described in a simple way that most Americans can understand.
Click to expand...

Or we could stop lowering our standards and start educating poeple. Education will solve everything. I bet 85% of American's can't even tell you who represents them.
 
Smokified said:
Or we could stop lowering our standards and start educating poeple. Education will solve everything. I bet 85% of American's can't even tell you who represents them.
Click to expand...

If I said, nobody, would I be wrong?
 
haymarket said:
I did.....

from the article on the 1964 Civil Rights Act from Wikipedia



The Democratic party supplied more YES voted to pass the bill than the Republicans did.
The Republicans voted in higher percentages for the bill than Dems did.

The votes to pass the bill were truly bipartisan and it could not have been done without support from both parties.
Click to expand...

Thank you, which supports my contention exactly. The poster that I responded to had claimed that the Civil Rights Act passed in spite of Republicans. That was false, as I said, and as you took the time to paste here. While Republicans were the minority, they voted in percentages of higher support than teh Dems, who were saddled with their Dixiecrat contingent.
 
haymarket said:
Ah yes. It is the rightwing libertarian desire to weaken and even destroy labor unions and the destruction of General Motors would have further that extremist goal. Save the banks - save Wall Street - save corporate America even if it means holding your nose as you claimed you did - but smile from ear to ear and scream loudly for the destruction of the American labor movement.
Click to expand...

LOL ..... Ford did not need a bailout. Ford is union. Ford would have taken up much of the slack. GM would still exist regardless. Just with less dead weight.

Or are you going to blame Conservatives because GM became so non-competitive too ? :roll:
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Thank you, which supports my contention exactly. The poster that I responded to had claimed that the Civil Rights Act passed in spite of Republicans. That was false, as I said, and as you took the time to paste here. While Republicans were the minority, they voted in percentages of higher support than teh Dems, who were saddled with their Dixiecrat contingent.
Click to expand...

You stated this

The vast majority of "Dixiecrats" stayed Democrat, and it was the Republicans that gave LBJ the support he needed to pass his civil rights bill. Look it all up.
Click to expand...

I believe that statement is misleading. It is somewhat truthful - in a limited way - in that the Republicans did provide votes necessary for its passage. However, the way you stated it leaves one with the impression that the Republicans were the principal party responsible for Congress passing the bill. Perhaps that was not your intention but that is how I read your comments. In reality, passage of the 64 Civil Rights Act was a bipartisan effort in which both parties contributed greatly to the bills passage. One cannot demonize either party nor credit just one party. It was a true bipartisan effort in which both parties made the passage possible.

One could also say that it was the Democrats who gave Johnson the support he needed to pass the bill and that would also be somewhat truthful - in a limited way - in that the Democrats did provide votes necessary for its passage. But I think that too would be misleading.
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
LOL ..... Ford did not need a bailout. Ford is union. Ford would have taken up much of the slack. GM would still exist regardless. Just with less dead weight.

Or are you going to blame Conservatives because GM became so non-competitive too ? :roll:
Click to expand...

Nope - I blame the execs at GM and politicians for not using the Constitution as it was written.

If GM could exist without its unions - that would be a travesty. When a company goes bankrupt - it should die like a snake run over in the highway by a semi.

Nobody can say if Ford would have picked up any slack or not. That is at best speculative.

There is no doubt that much of the right wing wetdream of allowing some of the Big Three to go without any federal help was simply to destroy lots of union jobs.
 
haymarket said:
Nope - I blame the execs at GM and politicians for not using the Constitution as it was written.

If GM could exist without its unions - that would be a travesty. When a company goes bankrupt - it should die like a snake run over in the highway by a semi.

Nobody can say if Ford would have picked up any slack or not. That is at best speculative.

There is no doubt that much of the right wing wetdream of allowing some of the Big Three to go without any federal help was simply to destroy lots of union jobs.
Click to expand...

As it would seem that your position is you agreed with it because it saved union jobs. I cared less either way as long as it would have been handled through the proper channels.
 
1Perry said:
As it would seem that your position is you agreed with it because it saved union jobs. I cared less either way as long as it would have been handled through the proper channels.
Click to expand...

The alternative was much worse - to allow GM and Chrysler to go belly up putting millions more out of work and provide the push necessary to take a recession over the cliff into a full fledged depression.
 
MaggieD said:
The FDIC was put into place to avoid the run on banks that led to the Great Depression. It is not a bank bailout. It's a confidence booster. Provided your bank accounts are structured correctly, one's deposits are insured up to $250,000 and more by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Yes, funded by taxpayers. Banks cannot loan out all of their capital. They have very strict regulations governing their reserves.

My common sense tells me that student loans are backed by the U.S. Government because college students don't have adequate credit scores. And, of all the loans in the world, a student loan is one biatch to default on. The government will intercept your IRS refund checks, freeze your bank accounts and, in every way you can think of, assure that the student repays. Student loans are not excused in bankruptcy either.

Student loans are not the only loans guaranteed by the U.S. Government:
Click to expand...

A confidence booster, exactly. And why would one need a confidence booster? Why not let banks fight among themselves over how best to keep customer confidence high about their services they offer? Competition, to put it another way. But no, instead, people don't think too much, nor care, about what the bank does with your money after you deposit it, because uncle sam promises that, no matter what, it'll be there when you want to take it back out. I want to open a business where I can put government backed guarantee on my product...

As it is, it is ONLY a confidence booster. As we saw at the beginning of the housing crisis, bank runs still ruin banks, regardless of the FDIC.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I saw an interview with a wannabe hippie looking kid whining that he had a college education and couldn’t get a job. Unemployment for people with a degree is 4.2%, maybe he should of got a degree in something other than liberal arts or just look harder for a job instead of wasting time protesting.
Click to expand...

The problem with saying "Maybe he should got a more "useful" degree" is that, no degree is useful if enough people have it. In other words, if everybody and their brother out there all got PHDs in the medical field, guess what we would see? Out of work doctors. You can only saturate a market with but so many workers, regardless of specialization. Once upon a time, when our parents where coming up, it was the 4 year degree guys making the good dough, and the electricians and the plumbers where only "making a living". So they pushed us to get a 4 year degree...in anything, just to have a bachelor's. Today, the result of this poor advice is that, people with 4 years are out struggling to find work, and when they get it, struggling to make end's meat, while the plumbers and electricians of the world are making pretty darn good livings, most averaging around 70 a year. So guess what parents are going to push their kids into?
 
cpwill said:
you can do all those things with no credit.
Click to expand...

Where? All the places I have ever rented required a credit check, and before I built any up, had to have a cosigner. Unless you save up, like, a huge sweaty wad of cash, you're not buying a car without credit, and if you have the sorta job that pays well enough to do this, you're not going to qualify for bankruptcy anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom