• 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!

BREAKING: Dow Jones Closes Above 13,000 For The First Time Since May 2008

And a good supporting cast can make crap, like Rex Grossman, a super bowl caliber QB.

:rofl

Loved your post, but this was my favorite part for obvious reasons. Although I would argue that Grossman was never a Superbowl caliber QB. He was just some douche who played in a Superbowl.
 
The courts couldn't fix the economic collapse that would have occurred if we had allowed commercial bank failure. What we learned from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is that the free market does not keep adequate checks on greedy investment bankers that don't mind risking peoples life savings and taxpayer dollars to fatten their pockets.

Courts don't need to fix economic collapse. They just need to divide up bankrupt companies, kill off the unprofitable components, sell off the profitable ones. We’re not looking to force some market correction, those don’t work too well. But free market, those companies go bye bye because they f’d up. Shouldn’t have leveraged so high, particularly not on a bubble. They knew what they were doing. Face the music.

What we could have done instead of bailing out the banks and Wall Street would have been to institute ACTUAL work programs. Short term employment so that the People can stay employed and productive as the economy recovers. Eventually, the economy will come back and we can peel off the temporary jobs and shift back to permanent positions within private industry. Plus we end up getting something in the long term for that. Like perhaps we fix a bunch of the problems with the infrastructure, or add to it. These are things government can do, and an economic downturn the likes we just saw (which was mostly caused by Wall Street and the Banks, or at least the magnitude of it was significantly increased due to their actions) is a good time to do it. You provide a temporary patch to keep people employed while the economy recovers.

The I think a better approach would be that we demand it be reestablished.
I don’t know how many people realize the lack of regulation and control was something that really led to this. To this day you have people claiming the reverse. But the truth is for sustained free market capitalism, much like for the proliferation of a free state, some amount of government intervention and regulation is necessary. Otherwise you get corporate capitalism, which is better described as fascism as said by the inventor of fascism

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Everyone loves to say “Socialist” this and that, but they’re wrong, it’s fascism that we’re messing with, and both sides of the Republocrats are for it.
 
Courts don't need to fix economic collapse. They just need to divide up bankrupt companies, kill off the unprofitable components, sell off the profitable ones. We’re not looking to force some market correction, those don’t work too well. But free market, those companies go bye bye because they f’d up. Shouldn’t have leveraged so high, particularly not on a bubble. They knew what they were doing. Face the music.

What we could have done instead of bailing out the banks and Wall Street would have been to institute ACTUAL work programs. Short term employment so that the People can stay employed and productive as the economy recovers. Eventually, the economy will come back and we can peel off the temporary jobs and shift back to permanent positions within private industry. Plus we end up getting something in the long term for that. Like perhaps we fix a bunch of the problems with the infrastructure, or add to it. These are things government can do, and an economic downturn the likes we just saw (which was mostly caused by Wall Street and the Banks, or at least the magnitude of it was significantly increased due to their actions) is a good time to do it. You provide a temporary patch to keep people employed while the economy recovers.

The Democrats had a jobs program and the GOP blocked it. Your plan for just letting the crooks fail would be fine if they weren't failing with other's life savings, thus the need to again separate investment banks from commercial banks.


I don’t know how many people realize the lack of regulation and control was something that really led to this. To this day you have people claiming the reverse. But the truth is for sustained free market capitalism, much like for the proliferation of a free state, some amount of government intervention and regulation is necessary. Otherwise you get corporate capitalism, which is better described as fascism as said by the inventor of fascism

Quite a few are realizing the need again for a firewall between investment banks and commercial banks. It is one of the top themes of the OWS protests and H.R. 1489 now has 58 co-sponsors!
 
So you have no viable alternative. Thanks.

Define viable. Viable to me means I vote for someone who doesn't go against my beliefs. Viable to me is someone that doesn't make me have to hold my nose while I darken the bubble by their name. Viable to most Americans, and I'm not saying specifically you unless it applies, is someone who can win. Well, when you go voting for someone that everyone thinks can win you usually end up voting against your beliefs just to say "your guy" got elected. When the guy everyone thinks is going to win is someone that allows their beliefs to sway with the popular opinion, I'm not voting for him. How about you?
 
Define viable.

In this case, someone that has a realistic chance of winning.


Viable to me means I vote for someone who doesn't go against my beliefs. Viable to me is someone that doesn't make me have to hold my nose while I darken the bubble by their name. Viable to most Americans, and I'm not saying specifically you unless it applies, is someone who can win. Well, when you go voting for someone that everyone thinks can win you usually end up voting against your beliefs just to say "your guy" got elected. When the guy everyone thinks is going to win is someone that allows their beliefs to sway with the popular opinion, I'm not voting for him. How about you?

If that is your definition of viable, you should not be surprised when your candidate loses the election in November. For myself I have seen no candidates that would require less nose holding than the president. I am fully behind most of what he has tried to do. Much more so than any other candidate out there, regardless of party. All the other candidate have much, much higher negatives than Obama IMO.
 
If that is your definition of viable, you should not be surprised when your candidate loses the election in November. For myself I have seen no candidates that would require less nose holding than the president. I am fully behind most of what he has tried to do. Much more so than any other candidate out there, regardless of party. All the other candidate have much, much higher negatives than Obama IMO.
I am fine with my candidate losing. I am not going to vote for the win because its settling for less. Thats my personal belief in the power of my vote. I would love for a candidate to represent my views AND have a chance to win. Unfortunately, the field this year doesn't allow that. Let me ask you this though. I can see why you wouldn't like Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. But why wouldn't you like Romney? He is the quintessential moderate who usually draws independents and some liberals. Obama has his positives, but, the problem he introduced, the debt, is the biggest problem we are facing over the next 8 years. I don't believe anything weights heavier that that. I don't think Obama is the guy to tackle the debt. If there's one thing he has demonstrated in his 4 years, its that he doesn't view the debt as a problem.
 
I am fine with my candidate losing. I am not going to vote for the win because its settling for less. Thats my personal belief in the power of my vote. I would love for a candidate to represent my views AND have a chance to win. Unfortunately, the field this year doesn't allow that. Let me ask you this though.

Its your vote to use however you feel its best put to use.

I can see why you wouldn't like Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. But why wouldn't you like Romney?

Here are some of the biggies as far as I am concerned:

Romney proposes increasing our our deficit by increasing our most wasteful spending, the military, and reducing our revenues through even bigger tax cuts to the wealthy, he plans to increase taxes on the working class, he plans to dismantle the financial regulations to prevent another financial collapse, and he has no plans to address one of our most important problems, AGW.
 
I am fine with my candidate losing. I am not going to vote for the win because its settling for less. Thats my personal belief in the power of my vote. I would love for a candidate to represent my views AND have a chance to win. Unfortunately, the field this year doesn't allow that. Let me ask you this though. I can see why you wouldn't like Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul. But why wouldn't you like Romney? He is the quintessential moderate who usually draws independents and some liberals. Obama has his positives, but, the problem he introduced, the debt, is the biggest problem we are facing over the next 8 years. I don't believe anything weights heavier that that. I don't think Obama is the guy to tackle the debt. If there's one thing he has demonstrated in his 4 years, its that he doesn't view the debt as a problem.

Romney doesn't appeal to those who hate the rich and think the government's main duty is to punish those who are successful, talented or lucky
 
Something positive is going on in the market. The put/call ratio is up 75% over the last 3 months. My PF isn't doing too badly.
 
Something positive is going on in the market. The put/call ratio is up 75% over the last 3 months. My PF isn't doing too badly.

Bernie is saying that he might institute another Wall Street welfare program.
 
Back
Top Bottom