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.
We've been in a cold civil war for some time now. It is just accelerating more and more. I will restrain from stating the reasons why because many in here will just be in denial about it anyway.
We've been in a cold civil war for some time now. It is just accelerating more and more. I will restrain from stating the reasons why because many in here will just be in denial about it anyway.
Who got $700 billion in bailouts in 2008? Hint: it wasn't the hated welfare queens.
I did a heap of thinking about that bailout. What was it...like 260+ Million dollars? Enough to make every citizen in the US a millionaire. All of it going to the banks. Now, if memory serves this was needed because of debt on loans that couldn't be repaid. Mortgages being a big chunk. Along with other lines of credit. So the answer was to just hand the banks a huge sum of money to keep extending such debt even further?
Wouldn't a better method have been to examine peoples debt load and extend that money to them, with the provision it be used to pay down that debt? The money would still be going to the banks, with the added benefit of giving people going under some breathing room. It may not have taken near as much money to do things that way, people could have saved their homes and salvaged their credit, the banks get their money, and things get stable again. Granted that unemployment, a lot of which was due to the housing bubble popping, was behind a lot of that unpaid debt. But I'm thinking that people getting that debt at least back to current could have re stimulated the housing market, by building from the bottom up, rather than the top down.
Last I checked, you don't build a house starting with the roof. That bailout seemed to me to be trying to suspend a roof from sky hooks, and frame down to a foundation that hadn't been poured yet. Building and reinforcing the foundation and building from there looks to be a better plan. It just doesn't add up to me that enough money was laid out to make everyone in the country a millionaire and yet the problem it was paid out to fix is still there. I'm not saying that everyone should have been made a millionaire. Talk about a devalued dollar. But, It would seem that a lot less could have been paid to shore things up from the bottom than using those aforementioned sky hooks.
I'm no economic wizard. Make no claims of even being close. And I'm not advocating that people should have been given large sums of money to do with as they pleased. Doing so surely would have seen a lot of new F 350s sitting in driveways, with boats and other toys. But made provisional on the money being used to bail out underwater mortgages and other extended credit seems to me would have had a more positive effect on the economy than giving it to banks that are going to do the same thing with that money they did the last time just making the problem bigger. Oh, I'm sure I'm missing something here and someone with more market savvy than me is rolling their eyes. I'm just trying to apply garden variety common sense to a big problem.
The ones waving around their Confederate flags and pocket copies of the Constitution are the ones who are fine with a POTUS who is undermining it with his unconstitutional travel bans, calling the free press the enemy of the people, defying the beholding-to-foreign-powers clause, etc.
Republicans have undermined our democracy with their gerrymandering, voter roll purging, voter suppression... and now they've teamed up with a con man and the Kremlin.
Good grief.
Republicans are in CYA mode now, spinning crackpot conspiracy theories supplied by Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, and the National Enquirer.
"with a POTUS who is undermining it with his unconstitutional travel bans,"
1 set of judges says it is unconstitutional, another judge say it is OK..
UNTIL it goes before the Supreme Court it is NOT settled, so quit making false claims.
"Republicans have undermined our democracy with their gerrymandering,"
The same old crap.
I'd bet you NEVER complained when the dems held control of the House for FORTY STRAIGHT years, and gerrymandered the hell out of a whole lot of districts.
"and now they've teamed up with a con man and the Kremlin."
MORE unproven garbage the left likes to throw around.
If you have PROOF, PROVIDE IT.
Just another reason why the dems are called "hypocrites!
This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.
It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.
You guys are getting increasingly divorced from reality, aren't you?
This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.
It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.
Your precious Pub party owns the USA. From DC to the statehouses the GOP is in control.
You can relax now.
The big bad Dems are not in your driveway with torches and pitchforks, screaming for your neck.
The ones waving around their Confederate flags and pocket copies of the Constitution are the ones who are fine with a POTUS who is undermining it with his unconstitutional travel bans, calling the free press the enemy of the people, defying the beholding-to-foreign-powers clause, etc.
Republicans have undermined our democracy with their gerrymandering, voter roll purging, voter suppression... and now they've teamed up with a con man and the Kremlin.
Good grief.
Republicans are in CYA mode now, spinning crackpot conspiracy theories supplied by Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, and the National Enquirer.
Republican party is having a very hard time coming to terms the reality of governing a large and diverse nation.
This very public self created failure has led to many of their supporters seeking to place blame and initiate conflict. Thus we get the "civil" war posts, the "anti" everything posts. The "If the dems" posts, and a whole slew af Wambulance / scare stories.
This is what a losing side does. Which is what makes it so damn funny! The Rs won all 3 and they are the ones crying and melting like special snowflakes. Perhaps they will pull it together in the near future, but the first 100 are lost.
The R's led by a buffoon have figuratively T-boned their shiny new Lexus exiting the dealership.
I did a heap of thinking about that bailout. What was it...like 260+ Million dollars? Enough to make every citizen in the US a millionaire. All of it going to the banks. Now, if memory serves this was needed because of debt on loans that couldn't be repaid. Mortgages being a big chunk. Along with other lines of credit. So the answer was to just hand the banks a huge sum of money to keep extending such debt even further?
Wouldn't a better method have been to examine peoples debt load and extend that money to them, with the provision it be used to pay down that debt? The money would still be going to the banks, with the added benefit of giving people going under some breathing room. It may not have taken near as much money to do things that way, people could have saved their homes and salvaged their credit, the banks get their money, and things get stable again. Granted that unemployment, a lot of which was due to the housing bubble popping, was behind a lot of that unpaid debt. But I'm thinking that people getting that debt at least back to current could have re stimulated the housing market, by building from the bottom up, rather than the top down.
Last I checked, you don't build a house starting with the roof. That bailout seemed to me to be trying to suspend a roof from sky hooks, and frame down to a foundation that hadn't been poured yet. Building and reinforcing the foundation and building from there looks to be a better plan. It just doesn't add up to me that enough money was laid out to make everyone in the country a millionaire and yet the problem it was paid out to fix is still there. I'm not saying that everyone should have been made a millionaire. Talk about a devalued dollar. But, It would seem that a lot less could have been paid to shore things up from the bottom than using those aforementioned sky hooks.
I'm no economic wizard. Make no claims of even being close. And I'm not advocating that people should have been given large sums of money to do with as they pleased. Doing so surely would have seen a lot of new F 350s sitting in driveways, with boats and other toys. But made provisional on the money being used to bail out underwater mortgages and other extended credit seems to me would have had a more positive effect on the economy than giving it to banks that are going to do the same thing with that money they did the last time just making the problem bigger. Oh, I'm sure I'm missing something here and someone with more market savvy than me is rolling their eyes. I'm just trying to apply garden variety common sense to a big problem.
For math's sake... it wouldn't have made everyone a millionaire. 700 billion divided by 300 million (or whatever it was then) would be around $2333. Not pennies, but incredibly far from making everyone millionaires.
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.
Building and reinforcing the foundation and building from there looks to be a better plan. It just doesn't add up to me that enough money was laid out to make everyone in the country a millionaire and yet the problem it was paid out to fix is still there. I'm not saying that everyone should have been made a millionaire. Talk about a devalued dollar. But, It would seem that a lot less could have been paid to shore things up from the bottom than using those aforementioned sky hooks. 
Whoa, big boy...
