Teflon Don
I'm back baby
I don't want them to work together. I want grid lock. The less they do, the better for thetaxpayer
APP - If economy is reviving, why are more Americans struggling to afford food?
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
I don't want them to work together. I want grid lock. The less they do, the better for thetaxpayer
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
What is this "unfettered" capitalism you speak of in the US?
Name three types of business that are "deregulated" meaning they have no regulation at the local, state, or federal level. Just three
nobodies life or property is safe while the legislature is in session...
unfortunately, the government is necessary to do some things, just not many
The truth is they are calling this a recovery but there are too many working american poor, working people that qualify for food stamps.
Millions of americans are underemployed because of corporate greed and this new corporate climate contempt for thier workers.
Corporate america is going to keep taking until america has had enough and forces change. Im all for capitalism and its the best system in the world, until unbridled greed takes over and thats where were at right now.
Millions of americans are underemployed because of corporate greed and this new corporate climate contempt for thier workers.
Corporate america is going to keep taking until america has had enough and forces change. Im all for capitalism and its the best system in the world, until unbridled greed takes over and thats where were at right now.
Space Monkey
New member
Where did you get this pile of shit theory? Cycles of any type tend to be similar in size to the preceding wave. You don't have growth for 15 years then recession for 18 months. Even if you count the fake recession that Bush used to justify permanently lowering taxes for the wealthy in the beginning of his first term, thereby shortening the cycle to 8 or 9 years, this recession would still be ongoing. The liars lie and you listen.
Space Monkey
New member
Bush/Cheney and the neo-cons caused structural damage to the economy. Why don't you people understand that facts remain facts no matter how long ago they occurred?
Space Monkey
New member
Imagine if Romney and those like him hadn't closed so many factories, permanently eliminating good paying jobs?
cawacko
Well-known member
What structural damages were those?
Space Monkey
New member
LMFAO
Space Monkey
New member
Do I really have to make a list for you?
Yes, I suppose I do.
The least understood but one of the most dramatic things was Cheney's behind closed doors energy policy meetings. As a result, one of Bush's first actions was
1a. To cancel the increase in CAFE standards passed during the Clinton administration
1b. To enact a tax structure whereby vehicles over 6000 lbs received the same tax breaks as commercial vehicles.
2. The war against a verb, which caused oil prices to spike over $4/gal.
As a result automakers declined to build fuel efficient cars, specialized in Excursions and Humvees (Hummers) (no, not what you wish your wife would give you).
When gas hit $4. you couldn't give away vehicles with v-8 engines and the auto dealerships were overstocked.
This started the domino effect, collapsing the economy and the need for "bailouts"
3a. Bush's "ownership society". While republicans constantly blame this on Frank, the fact is that the effort was top down or as Truman said; "the buck stops here".
3b. Greenspan.
3c. The laxity at the SEC. (CDS would never have been possible had ANYONE been paying attention).
3d. Goldman Sachs (Neil Bush was directly involved, the Treasurer of the US was the CEO of Goldman Sachs, The FED allowed just one bank (Goldman Sachs main competitor to go under before enacting TARP)
Goldman Sachs has never been as profitable.
3e. Tax policy which encouraged expatriation of american jobs (which continues to this day, proving that the US is a single party Plutocracy) (Obama is the current puppet).
The results of 3 were the housing crisis, massive forclosures (legal and illegal) (the most massive theft in the history of mankind) and that the national debt has become so extreme that "austerity" is taken seriously at the federal, state, county and local levels. For every job created in the private sector one has been cut in the public sector, further ensuring long term unemployment among the masses. (this last statement is an exaggeration to make a point.)
I would have to spend the next 2 years detailing every other action taken during the Bush II administration that derailed the economy, but hopefully this is enough to get you started thinking.
And you blot the past from your mind. And for good reason, you might have to connect the dots and learn which would force you to admit the policies you favor were / are a disaster.
Space Monkey
New member
Name three things that don't exist at all. What is the point of child-like questions like this? Something can be de-regulated and still have some regulations, just not enough or not relevant ones.
Space Monkey
New member
Can you refute any single point Crash made without resorting to semantics?
I did. He claims that there was a free and unfettered market which precipitated all the rest. Nothing could be further from the truth. If he were to suggest that cronie capitalism took a much bigger role than it had then he would be closer to the truth. Free markets favor no one and that obviohsly has not been the case over that period.
Crashk
Unite or Die
There's nothing free in 'free markets'.
What does "let the free market work", what does that really mean when they say that?
Does it mean to remove government - and deregulate everything?
Because we already saw how that worked - repealing Glass-Steagal - repealing reserve requirements - repealing derivatives regulations - all leading to the stock market bubbling, then crashing and burning - just like what happened in the 1920s after the free market was deregulated in 1921 by President Harding, whose slogan was - literally this was his election slogan - "less government in business, more business in government".
We saw what lack of regulations did in the BP oil disaster in the Gulf last year that killed 11 men - or in the Massey mine disaster that killed 38 people.
When you get rid of all the rules - and the referees - then the market will inevitably descend into chaos - and sometimes even people die.
Yeah, it might generate a boat load of wealth for the one percenters at the top for a little bit - but then - as has happened every time free marketeers have succeeded in letting the "free market" work - it all comes crashing down.
Imagine if you went to a baseball game - and there were no rules - there were no umpires - there were no balls and strikes - no limit to how many people were on the field - no foul ball lines - no specific order to the bases...what kind of game would you see played out?
It'd be chaos - complete and utter chaos.
The Republican reply to this?
Let the team with the most money determine the rules of the game.
They can get five strikes, they can move the pitcher's mound closer, they can get a home run with just three bases.
And the team with less money? They have to work with a different set of rules where if the umpires catch them breaking even small rules, their guys are thrown out of the game forever.
This is, in essence, how Mitt Romney gamed the system for years with Bain, buying companies, changing their rules, laying off their people, moving their production overseas, and taking millions for himself while he let you and me pay for the unemployment expenses for his former employees.
It's the Republican way, and it has nothing to do with anything that's "free" - it's about markets where the rich, and the rich alone, rule and set the rules.
So when the Republicans talk about letting the "free market" work - they might as well be saying let the free market fairies wave their magic wands and everything will be just fine.
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/20...t-fairies-10-november-11#sthash.SvNERDQQ.dpuf
What does "let the free market work", what does that really mean when they say that?
Does it mean to remove government - and deregulate everything?
Because we already saw how that worked - repealing Glass-Steagal - repealing reserve requirements - repealing derivatives regulations - all leading to the stock market bubbling, then crashing and burning - just like what happened in the 1920s after the free market was deregulated in 1921 by President Harding, whose slogan was - literally this was his election slogan - "less government in business, more business in government".
We saw what lack of regulations did in the BP oil disaster in the Gulf last year that killed 11 men - or in the Massey mine disaster that killed 38 people.
When you get rid of all the rules - and the referees - then the market will inevitably descend into chaos - and sometimes even people die.
Yeah, it might generate a boat load of wealth for the one percenters at the top for a little bit - but then - as has happened every time free marketeers have succeeded in letting the "free market" work - it all comes crashing down.
Imagine if you went to a baseball game - and there were no rules - there were no umpires - there were no balls and strikes - no limit to how many people were on the field - no foul ball lines - no specific order to the bases...what kind of game would you see played out?
It'd be chaos - complete and utter chaos.
The Republican reply to this?
Let the team with the most money determine the rules of the game.
They can get five strikes, they can move the pitcher's mound closer, they can get a home run with just three bases.
And the team with less money? They have to work with a different set of rules where if the umpires catch them breaking even small rules, their guys are thrown out of the game forever.
This is, in essence, how Mitt Romney gamed the system for years with Bain, buying companies, changing their rules, laying off their people, moving their production overseas, and taking millions for himself while he let you and me pay for the unemployment expenses for his former employees.
It's the Republican way, and it has nothing to do with anything that's "free" - it's about markets where the rich, and the rich alone, rule and set the rules.
So when the Republicans talk about letting the "free market" work - they might as well be saying let the free market fairies wave their magic wands and everything will be just fine.
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/20...t-fairies-10-november-11#sthash.SvNERDQQ.dpuf
Or its saturday afternoon and people have lives ? One would have to go back a century to get close to free markets. What we have is cronie capitalism. Regulation favoring whoever is buying it. Get rid of that and see what happens. Really please do lesrn whst free msrket means
Crashk
Unite or Die
They will probably come back with their usual insults against me and no proof their 'free market' is anything but a cash cow for the rich.
cawacko
Well-known member
The free market and capitalism have done more than any other economic system to create growth and bring people around the world out of poverty.
While you like to post what Tom Hartman has to say I notice you don't like to answer questions much. Such as the one below which I asked you earlier in the thread.
""Crash, what was happening to the U.S. economically in the '70's? What would have happened, in your opinion, had we stayed on that same path?""
I also noticed you didn't answer my comment in a different thread where I asked if you found any irony in saying Republicans won't know who they are for until Sheldon Andersen tells them yet the you and the Democrats have already coroneted Hillary Clinton as your party's representative. You say you are a progressive and think Hillary is too moderate yet you are ok with her already being the choice this far out?