• 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!

Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance [W:246, 565, *656*]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

What's pathetic was that he was correct. Bush had already decided. We were going in. Evidence be damned. We were going to recklessly spend American lives for nothing, making things worse.
And Obama made damned sure it was for nothing.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

And Obama made damned sure it was for nothing.

No, or that was always the case. This was always up to the Iraqis. Your side just always avoids accepting responsibility for what you are responsible for, wasting lives on a reckless poorly thought out act of aggression.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

So you think that taxpayers should pay for the mistakes of businesses so that people can keep their jobs? Is this what you're saying?



It is not the job of our federal government to bail out banks. Please find me that where it is stated that is one of the federal government responsibilities.



Forcing taxpayers to pay for bank bail outs is not a function of society, nor does it keep anyone from harm.



Of course not, TARP was useless. No it is not the job of the government to interfere, nor is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the mistakes of a business. I don't know where you're getting these crazy ideas, but it sounds like you don't understand the limitations of the federal government.

Chris, I agree with all of that, but at the time, panic was setting in, and our congresscritters and POTUS felt that they couldn't risk total economic collapse. What they did in the long run created a moral hazard, and probably was not the correct route, but they had to do something, and it was indeed effective in the short run - our economy faultered, but it fell short of total collapse.

I just wish that they had given more consideration to other alternatives, and moved on those alternatives much earlier, and had established proper regulation of our lending system prior to the bubble. The whole think was entirely avoidable.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

No, or that was always the case. This was always up to the Iraqis. Your side just always avoids accepting responsibility for what you are responsible for, wasting lives on a reckless poorly thought out act of aggression.
fitting that you continue to post such responses filled with projection . Hint for ya, Bush is no longer president.
 
If BushII had backed the partisan political theory many CONs espouse then yes the economy should have been allowed to drive off the cliff like it routinely did in decades past. Millions more of Americans would have been out of work as the cascade of business failures would have been far more wide reaching.

(course if CON economic philosophy was worth half a bucket of warm spit the 'invisible hand' would have stopped the bus before it got to the cliff and no CEO would have let his corporation engage in risky practices for short term gain) Remember those gems??? :roll:

As far as bankruptcy goes, the CONs pushed hard to limit that option as a loser's way out. Have you ever declared bankruptcy? A close friend did because of major medical bills even though he had pretty good medical insurance at the time. He was 300,000 in debt AFTER his insurance was done picking up it's part. He worked two jobs but finally gave in and filed. I NEVER want to go through that- EVER. (I don't think you do either)

Keeping our economy from tanking as bad as it did ROUTINELY in the past, a quick study of our nation's capitalism shows recessions and depressions as a dismally common rate of occurrence. Unbridled capitalism does harm a nation. I'm more of a fix the problem and then hang the bastards but when lobbyists can get regulations cut and laws past it is difficult to punish those who wrecked the economy without ruining the lives of millions of 'innocent' citizens.

Odd thing I noticed, the concept of 'innocent being harmed' in the CON world. Millions of hard working Americans would have their lives thrown into chaos and financial ruin by a cavalier attitude of 'punishing' businesses who's CEOs and major players have gold plated ejector seats and golden parachutes for just such emergencies.

I don't see allowing businesses to collapse as punishing anyone but those millions of Middle Class Americans who's careers are now ruined but not even a paper parachute from 'corporate', millions of Retired Americans who's 401K is now worthless, and millions of Americans who never earned a penny working for or investing in the collapsing businesses but now are out of work as the collapse ends the customers they relied on.

That's a trickle down Reagan never wanted to believe in.... :peace

Blaming the collapse on " Capitalism " is highly naive, and blaming the consequences of the Collapse on Bush is partisan hackery.

You Libz get so indignant over TARP, ( most of which has been payed back ) but for some reason have nothing to say about the REAL bailout

Fannie and Freddie were taken into Conservatorship holding a accumulated 5 Trillion plus in debt.

On top of that the FED has been buying up their worthless securities at 40 Billion a month for years now.

Blaming Capitalism is refusing to acknowledge that it was Government intervention into the free markets for the purpose of guaranteeing '" fairness " thatled to the Housing crisis.

You can also add the bail out the hundreds of Millions of dollars that the Federal government has been paying since 2008 to pick up the Tab for the GSEs debt service AND legal fees.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

And Obama made damned sure it was for nothing.

It was for nothing as soon as the first soldier's boot touched Iraqi sand. Once we invaded, we were doomed to failure. You cannot force a way of life upon an entire population that does not wish to change.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

CON game- the Government should keep the economy stable by first not stripping away all the regulations put in place to correct from the last time the free hand of capitalism jacked the economy off a cliff and then by not allowing millions of Americans to lose their jobs because the same smucks who would never hurt their corporations (according to the CON capitalism primer) did just that for short term gains. (those CEOs and money managers should be charged with criminal misconduct but sadly most of those laws were stripped out)

It is very much the job of the federal government to 'bail-out' account holders, either if robbed or the bank itself conducts fraud. the FDIC protects account holders. Please find for me where the courts have ruled the FDIC is unconstitutional. :)

Society does in fact protect banks, jobs, homes, health, your loved ones- NO ONE can go it alone- we depend on ambulance crews (taxpayers are 'forced' to pay for them), firefighters (again more 'forced' taxpayer funding), but also the facets that keep this nation more than a cabal of individuals fighting over the scrapheap from other nations that do band together.

Of course the Government should step in (should act proactively to prevent market crashes from short sighted capitalistic greed) and prevent a massive collapse of our economy from hurricanes to derivative scandals.

I don't know where you get your concepts of governance- cut throat capitalism and a level of society that goes back to kill or be killed hunter gatherers... :doh

Chris, I agree with all of that, but at the time, panic was setting in, and our congresscritters and POTUS felt that they couldn't risk total economic collapse. What they did in the long run created a moral hazard, and probably was not the correct route, but they had to do something, and it was indeed effective in the short run - our economy faultered, but it fell short of total collapse.

I just wish that they had given more consideration to other alternatives, and moved on those alternatives much earlier, and had established proper regulation of our lending system prior to the bubble. The whole think was entirely avoidable.

Was TARP Worth It? - Forbes
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

All this turmoil is doing wonders for my precious metals.

And since there is nothing I can do to stop it (the bloodshed)...might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

Buy the ticket...take the ride.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

It was for nothing as soon as the first soldier's boot touched Iraqi sand. Once we invaded, we were doomed to failure. You cannot force a way of life upon an entire population that does not wish to change.

that's not it. all people want the same thing. freedom, protection, for their kids to have happy lives. Those people deserve it just as much as you or I deserve it. And this situation is just sad no matter who you want to blame for it.
America was created(and succeeded) because it had thoughtful, intelligent leaders at it's inception. I kept hoping Iraq could find such men to lead them to success, but it looks like selfish men run the show. They don't have a George Washington to lead them, and that is what they needed.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Moderator's Warning:
Closed for moderator review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom