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.
Of course they were, the 2001 tax cuts were across the board. There was no favoritism given to anyone, regardless of their income. Everyone saw a reduction in taxes, not just the "rich." You are merely regurgitating Democrat propaganda, which has nothing to do with reality.
Here is a simple chart to illustrate the Obama plan vs. Bush plan. Notice what happens at the bottom. The cuts do illustrate favoritism.
So we shouldn't feel sorry that America has undergone a major recession caused by deregulation of financial markets? We shouldn't feel sorry that gays are being hypocritically persecuted? We should accept that planned parenthood...which does more than abortions...was almost defunded?
Should I be like Glitch or Marcopolo and be jumping for joy at the problems caused by poor regulations and policies?
good lord it wasn't de regulation, it was getting rid of the checks and balances a free market gives you.
Why in the world would banks lend money to people with weak credit histories and low down payments when in the past they knew it was foolish?
All of a sudden its a good thing? No one had ever thought of that before I guess. There is a good reason the money wasn't lent in the past. The lending institutions would loose their shirt.
We shouldn't feel sorry that gays are being hypocritically persecuted?
We should accept that planned parenthood...which does more than abortions...was almost defunded?
Out of all the substantial problems in the world... out of all the real moral travesties... some of which you even mentioned, you then have the nerve to trivialize something important like gay rights by putting it in the same discussion with you being upset that your [seemingly] preferred special interest group isn't greedily getting quite enough of a cut of the loot?
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood is just yet another special interest group to add to the five mile high mountain of special interest groups. And like so many of them, they all want their greedy cut of the big ol' cash pie.
I'm sure that organization would just love to be every bit as greedy as any of the most obnoxious corporations, and would gladly rape the American taxpayers dry if they could press a magical button that allowed them to take endless gobs of money to fund their greedy desires, if it could be done impunity.
That organization can go to proverbial Hell, the same place every other money grubbing special interest pandering group belongs. That includes every single corporations that has been a subsidy recipient (whether "one time" or habitual, whether small amount or obscene amount), and that includes every two-bit shyster organizations trying to peddle their bulldung as some kind of "public service" to justify their subsidies.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 06-15-2011 at 02:15 AM..
Out of all the substantial problems in the world... out of all the real moral travesties... some of which you even mentioned, you then have the nerve to trivialize something important like gay rights by putting it in the same discussion with you being upset that your [seemingly] preferred special interest group isn't greedily getting quite enough of a cut of the loot?
Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood is just yet another special interest group to add to the five mile high mountain of special interest groups. And like so many of them, they all want their greedy cut of the big ol' cash pie.
I'm sure that organization would just love to be every bit as greedy as any of the most obnoxious corporations, and would gladly rape the American taxpayers dry if they could press a magical button that allowed them to take endless gobs of money to fund their greedy desires, if it could be done impunity.
That organization can go to proverbial Hell, the same place every other money grubbing special interest pandering group belongs. That includes every single corporations that has been a subsidy recipient (whether "one time" or habitual, whether small amount or obscene amount), and that includes every two-bit shyster organizations trying to peddle their bulldung as some kind of "public service" to justify their subsidies.
So visitation rights, having the same protections to work (you can legally fire a person because they are homosexual in many states), as well as adoption benefits are somehow "greedy". Sorry, but I think that if you extend out those rights to heterosexuals, why not homosexuals? It's not all about money.
Planned Parenthood does A LOT more than abortions. I used them for STD checks. There are special interest groups and then there are groups that don't get that much from the government but are do a valuable service. Planned Parenthood is one of the groups.
I worked in non-profits and for profit organizations. Non-profits have a different feel about them, essentially the quality of service they provide dictates whether or not they are funded. Greed is not a determining factor. In for profit organizations, cutting back and providing the bare min. was the motivating factor.
good lord it wasn't de regulation, it was getting rid of the checks and balances a free market gives you.
Why in the world would banks lend money to people with weak credit histories and low down payments when in the past they knew it was foolish?
All of a sudden its a good thing? No one had ever thought of that before I guess. There is a good reason the money wasn't lent in the past. The lending institutions would loose their shirt.
It's deregulation. Sorry, but most scholars agree...
They knew it was foolish, hence the insurance policies taken out. AIG didn't correctly estimate the risk (bad paperwork, poor estimation, and a whole host of problems).
Regulation of the derivatives market could have prevented this.
It's deregulation. Sorry, but most scholars agree...
They knew it was foolish, hence the insurance policies taken out. AIG didn't correctly estimate the risk (bad paperwork, poor estimation, and a whole host of problems).
Regulation of the derivatives market could have prevented this.
The derivatives market was highly regulated, adding thousands of pages of new regulations is not deregulating. Regulations are nothing more than a road map for people to learn how to game the system.
We need to bring back liability to the system, regulations won't do it. If a company does not have the reserves to cover their outstanding risk they can't offer that product.
Nassim Taleb covers this very well in this short clip.
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.
