Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, any idiot knows that the Tech Bubble was precisely that: A bubble. The share prices were inflated so far beyond the worth of internet companies that only a halfwit would have held onto those stocks. The fact that you actually referred to it as the Tech Bubble without any awareness means that you have no idea what a bubble is.
On to the housing crisis. Yeah, Bush should have put a stop to the government underwriting of mortgages with Fannie Mae, FHA, and Freddie Mac. But he didn't.
But given that Bush had butkus to do with the Federal Reserve's decisions to push interest rates to practically zero, thereby creating runaway lending and home valuations, your argument holds no water. The President has no control over the Fed.
That being said, it says a lot more about Obama that he made Geithner the Secretary of the Treasury, particularly since Geithner was the President of the NY Federal Reserve, and blithely stood by and watched the big banks screw the pooch.
The Republicans did try to get legislation through to reverse the Clinton policy of a home for every American whether they can afford it or not. The Democrat controlled Congress would not let it move forward. Obama has created a second housing bubble by interfering with the free market with the homebuyer credit.
No, the Republicans don't care about you if you are poor, middle, or working class. But then, neither do the Democrats really.
In my humble opinion, the Republicans, with a few exceptions, serve the interests of large corporations and the Democrats serve the interests of those seeking radical environmental and social agendas.
It is a very frustrating situation......
It would be nice if there were legitimate candidates for Congress, the President, and other major offices who could combine and implement the good ideas of both the left and the right. More important than political ideology is to actually listen to the regular citizens and implement those ideas rather than just assuring the rest of us that they, the politicians, know whats best for us.......
I know, wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which fills up first.....
The Republicans did try to get legislation through to reverse the Clinton policy of a home for every American whether they can afford it or not. The Democrat controlled Congress would not let it move forward. Obama has created a second housing bubble by interfering with the free market with the homebuyer credit.
These mortgage banks cannot even find the original notes for homes that they fraudulently foreclosed (and evicted real American people). You trust free market to fix this?
Last edited by aspiesmom; 10-11-2010 at 11:58 AM..
The more I hear the issue debated, the more I agree with the statement. Republicans had not issue spending trillions upon trillions of dollars on 2 wars no one wants but then vehemently opposed health care for US citizens. I just don't understand that.
As for NJ, since I'm from here, the same thing is happeneing. Our Republican governor cut 820 million from school and wants to cut pensions for hardworking middle class people. He cut completely the small budget of 2 million dollars for the bloustein scholarship that is supposed to go towards NJ students who excel and go to NJ schools. His decisions continually force middle class and poor NJ citizens to pay more for services and/or have to give them up completely. In the same breath, he wants to spend millions upon millions for the state to take over Xanadu. He then wants to spend millions upon millions upon millions more to help Atlantic City. Oh, and then he allowed the people making over $400,000 a year to pay less income tax saying that it was a hardship for them. And couple that with his smugness to tear up the Race to the Top application so that he can rewrite it himself which eventually cost us much needed $400 million. so yeah...can you guess who this Republican is helping the most?
The more I hear the issue debated, the more I agree with the statement. Republicans had not issue spending trillions upon trillions of dollars on 2 wars no one wants but then vehemently opposed health care for US citizens. I just don't understand that. ...
It makes me totally livid too, these teabaggers were never marching and rallying to stop the wars, yet lacked spending on appropriate soldier's body armor while they spent on the no-bid contracts for Halliburton etc, the cost-plus for military contractors, the Blackwater and its abuses of civilians (paid for by taxpayers), the pillage and plunder and gluttony of wars of choice, for gas pipeline and oil. And they voted for this TWICEBut then years after I was protesting on street corners being yelled and screamed at by the scary Republican drivers during rush hour, then these same people turn into teabaggers and protest HEALTHCARE.
Last edited by aspiesmom; 10-11-2010 at 12:28 PM..
No, the Republicans don't care about you if you are poor, middle, or working class. But then, neither do the Democrats really.
In my humble opinion, the Republicans, with a few exceptions, serve the interests of large corporations and the Democrats serve the interests of those seeking radical environmental and social agendas.
It is a very frustrating situation......
It would be nice if there were legitimate candidates for Congress, the President, and other major offices who could combine and implement the good ideas of both the left and the right. More important than political ideology is to actually listen to the regular citizens and implement those ideas rather than just assuring the rest of us that they, the politicians, know whats best for us.......
I know, wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which fills up first.....
Not so radical> These were agendas of both Roosevelts, Theodore and FDR, one Republican, one Democrat. Clean Energy and Conservation of our Resources is our ticket to solving the three E's: Environment, Energy AND Economy
Last edited by aspiesmom; 10-11-2010 at 12:19 PM..
The REPUBLICANS are against Unions which help the middle class and always have.
Unions hurt consumers by artificially inflating prices. How does that help the middle class? Eventually those jobs will be forced overseas where wages are at market levels. How does losing US jobs help the middle class?
Quote:
The REPUBLICANS want to lower wages....HOW does THAT help the middle class?
Republicans want wages to be set by the marketplace, not by beurracrats in Washington ... most of whom have never worked a real job in their lives.
Quote:
Who's in the military getting killed? The middle class.
Who is in the military getting killed? Conservatives, not liberals -- who hate their country and would never serve even back when there was a draft.
Quote:
The REPUBLICANS want to eliminate Social Security....WHO is against the middle class?
Republicans want to save social security which is bankrupt. Republicans also want to give future generations the chance to chose where to invest their own money for their own future and not have to HOPE government will provide for them.
Quote:
The REPUBLICANS are against legal abortion....that doesn't hurt the upper class....just the lower and middle class.
It hurts the unborn babies a lot more. Abortionists didn't come up with abortion to help the poor. They did it to solve the "Black problem". It was mainly for population control for undesirable minorities. Rich women could always find ways to get illegal abortions pre-1973.
Unions hurt consumers by artificially inflating prices. How does that help the middle class? Eventually those jobs will be forced overseas where wages are at market levels. How does losing US jobs help the middle class?
Republicans want wages to be set by the marketplace, not by beurracrats in Washington ... most of whom have never worked a real job in their lives.
Who is in the military getting killed? Conservatives, not liberals -- who hate their country and would never serve even back when there was a draft.
Republicans want to save social security which is bankrupt. Republicans also want to give future generations the chance to chose where to invest their own money for their own future and not have to HOPE government will provide for them.
It hurts the unborn babies a lot more. Abortionists didn't come up with abortion to help the poor. They did it to solve the "Black problem". It was mainly for population control for undesirable minorities. Rich women could always find ways to get illegal abortions pre-1973.
All found to be lies a million times over
( the one which denigrates the contribution of American military heroes ONLY because of their political affiliation is also quite disgusting, unpatriotic, and the standard hatred for our troops by REPUGS)....
yawn, just the same old same old bumper sticker philosophy that repubs keep trotting out despite facts to the contrary....
Not so radical> These were agendas of both Roosevelts, Theodore and FDR, one Republican, one Democrat. Clean Energy and Conservation of our Resources is our ticket to solving the three E's: Environment, Energy AND Economy
Ok, I see where you're coming from I think. On a side note, Teddy is the president I most admire.
Anyway, yes, I agree that clean energy can contribute to improving our economy. While the initial investments in windfarms, solar, and other technologies may be expensive at first, it will be worth it in the long run. Far better that money be spent domestically than pumped into the coffers of countries who hate us in exchange for oil.
On the other hand, we should also be developing our own petroleum resources, clean nuclear power plants, and finding ways to use our own coal reserves.
An example of what I define as a radical environmental agenda is to absolutely forbid the extraction of oil from a wildlife area. I'm not saying we should lay waste to the whole area, but if we can obtain the resources needed in a responsible manner, then, we should do so. That's all.
Ok, I see where you're coming from I think. On a side note, Teddy is the president I most admire.
Anyway, yes, I agree that clean energy can contribute to improving our economy. While the initial investments in windfarms, solar, and other technologies may be expensive at first, it will be worth it in the long run. Far better that money be spent domestically than pumped into the coffers of countries who hate us in exchange for oil.
On the other hand, we should also be developing our own petroleum resources, clean nuclear power plants, and finding ways to use our own coal reserves.
An example of what I define as a radical environmental agenda is to absolutely forbid the extraction of oil from a wildlife area. I'm not saying we should lay waste to the whole area, but if we can obtain the resources needed in a responsible manner, then, we should do so. That's all.
While I see it as a necessary evil (IMHO)to use domestic fossil fuels during a Clean Energy transition process, I really think we can stop using them forever, once our national infrastructure and economy is totally converted to Clean Energy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But then years after I was protesting on street corners being yelled and screamed at by the scary Republican drivers during rush hour, then these same people turn into teabaggers and protest HEALTHCARE. 
