United States Heading towards a Depression?

Absolute disengagement from the truth.

 

Breeze, we covered this several pages back. American business is not suffering from lack of access to capital, so this bill will do nothing except waste even more taxpayer dollars and push capital into unwise speculation. American business is sitting on much larger amounts of capital than normal -- and will continue to do so until the government gets out of the way and makes it safe to invest in America.

You're wrong and the people you are calling idiots are closer to being right. The Paulista's and the Tea Party people are very different groups. In fact, there is quite a bit of hostility between the two groups. Ron Paul is a virtual unknown to the Tea Party people. In anything, he's known as "Rand's dad" and Rand is only known because Sarah Palin stood up for him.

The Tea Party is for a strong foreign policy and the Paulista's are for a weak foreign policy. These views are not reconcilable.

The next election is for Congress critters. In this role, both Ron and Rand are "safe" -- i.e. they can act like gadfly's and yet not break anything important.

I would not equate Ron Paul's foreign policy with Rand Paul's. Rand is less luddite and more pragmatic than Ron.

You have to live in Texas or Kentucky to vote for one of them. This is a non-issue for 96% of Americans.

Unfortunately, Ron's "something disagreeable" constituted a threat to the continued survival of both the United States and Western Civilization. Other than that, I think he's a great guy.

 

The Great Republican Recession of 08 is without a doubt derived from bank insolvency as a lack of capital and the liquidity necessary for daily business transactions for a functioning economy.

Many of your assertions such as there not being a lack of capital (during a recession) have as much basis as asking Sara Palin or Christine O'Donnell there opinion on the same subject as being equally relevant.

At any rate the Democratic legislations to date have prevented any further erosion within the economy and continue to propel it forward in an ever expanding rate of growth.

 

Breeze, it's derived from Democratic Control of Congress. Where were you in 08? You do realize who was in charge right?

 

The bank insolvency leading to the recession is exactly why the Republicans were voted out of office - Not one Republican nor an affiliated tea-party candidate yet has sought the endorsement or campaign appearance of George Bush or the party as a whole for the simple reason of their responsibility for the economic calamity that was entirely of the Republican parties making.

Not to mention the meaningless, unfunded trillion dollar Iraqi war.

Again....Where is your leader George Bush, 2010 - no where to be found as the answer to the Republican legacy.

 

Breeze, the war was funded, approved and paid for by a bi-partisan congress.

Bank insolvency as you like to call it was the direct result of the Carter and Clinton admin CRA - Fannie / Freddie and people like Barney Frank, Harry Reid, etc. The complete and total control of two governmental lending institutions that lent money they did not have to banks in an effort to force them to make bad loans to people they knew would never pay.

Breeze, you're just not old enough to realize that some of us had to put 20% down on our homes in order to qualify for a loan. Back in those "responsible" days, prior to the ramping up of the CRA and lack of regulation of Fannie/Freddie. All of this happened under Democrat control, not the other way around.

BTW, when is the last time any candidate has sought the endorsement of a former president as a litmus test of gaining approval and popularity?

Stick to iCarly buddy...

 

Pardon me for not being very clear, Will. When I meant the "next election", I meant the presidential election.

The only information I could find on "paulistas", other than the hundreds of pages about South America, was some snotty self proclaimed "ultra-liberal" shitting this diatribe out:

The utter nerve; Paul has a cult of personality? Where has this bint been hiding throughout saviour Obama's reign? God forbid We The People try even in the face of adversity.

I'm sure I'm still correct in thinking Paul originally began the modern Tea Party movement. Whether the Tea Party itself disagrees on certain issues with Paul doesn't necessarily discredit this notion. Just because he gave the spark, doesn't mean they vehemently adhere to his views.

He talks often of his opinions on a strong, defensive America. Just because he doesn't support unfounded wars and preemptive attacks, he is a threat to our survival? Come now, that's a bit dramatic mate.

 

He got his butt kicked at the polls. He's hiding in the losers box.

Your assertion is opposed to the facts. Ron Paul is not involved in the Tea Party movement, nor is the Tea Party movement supportive of Ron Paul. Ron Paul only became of interest to the Tea Party movement through Rand Paul, who only became of interest through Sarah Palin, who was herself a latecomer to the party. These are totally and completely separate movements, with very little crossover in terms of adherents.

Here's a quick trick to tell if you're at a Tea Party get-together or a Ron Paul get-together -- bring up the topic of support for Israel. The Paulista's blame Israel and our support for Israel for 9/11. The Tea Party people blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11.

Or heck, bring up the topic of George W. Bush. The Paulista's will call him a war mongering baby killer. The Tea Party people supported the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq; their beef with GWB is related to fiscal responsibility and government growth on the domestic front.

Or, simply think of the Tea Party as the party of small-government, free-market, neo-conservatives.

 

Murkowski a liberal - vice chairman Republican conference and not a vote for a single Democratic agenda in sustaining all the pub filibusters?

Nothing like great news only 6 weeks from the midterms. Along with Delaware, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and a few other states where the Tea Party / Republican coalition have coalesced, they may have actually limit their expanse than broadened their appeal per their extremism and have chosen less electable candidates irregardless their views - Murkowskie and Castle were shoe-ins for their states....oh, moderates are the same as their feared liberals and purity for the reactionaries are the candidates they have chosen?

Murkouskie is after Palin no matter what the outcome - including payback in Delaware, Nevada etc. and the whole bunch in a rat bag with a wild Terrier wrapped in extremism - just may be a happier Nov.2nd than already expected.

 

In a way, part of me hopes that BreezeWood is right. The Democrats doing well in this election will mean two more years of depression -- which would be far more instructional for the American voters. I do not believe the voters have learned their lesson well enough yet -- I believe they need more pain to really let the "Don't vote for Marxists" lesson sink in.

 

The only thing will will save America is Andrew Jackson crawling out of his grave and heading for Washington.

 

I have to say you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Of course you cant paint all tea party people with the same brush. I'm sure there are quite a few that still think Bush is a baby killer. I'm sure there are more than a few minorities who voted with the democrats in the past. I'm sure there are more than a few homosexuals who are sick of watching Democrats line their own pockets while claiming to represent their interests. The single uniting factor at the end of the day is the size of our runaway federal government. But generally speaking, I think you are dead on.

Murkowski is a self serving scumbag, just like Charlie Crist. She is shocked to see that she was not selected as the nominee of her party, after all, wasn't she ENTITLED to it? If there was any doubt as to whether or not she deserved the nomination, she eliminated that doubt when she announced her "write in" campaign. Anther f*&king career politician put out of work sucking off the taxpayer tit. GOOD RIDDANCE!

Breeze, for all your nonsensical ramblings, I think you've actually touched on a very important issue here. It may very well be that the candidates selected by the Tea Party for the Republican party do not win this election cycle. It may be that the idea of sticking to the constitution is just too "radical" for the voting populous of our nation. God knows the sea of federal social programs we support, thanks to liberals like Bush and Obama, have created a more liberal and dependent voting population. It may already be too late.

I do know this, however. We can never expect change in Washington if we keep sending the same people, and the same type of people, back there to represent us. Castle and Murkowski are prototypical Washington blood suckers. Go along to get along is what brought us to this god awful sh*t sandwich we are dealing with today, and if we elect people like Castle and Murkowski just because we think they stand a better chance of defeating their Democratic opponent, then we the people have absolutely no values and deserve what we get.

Castle, like Murkowski, showed his colors when he refused to call to congratulate O'Donnell. The Republican party showed their idiocy by announcing they would not fund O'Donnell within an hour of her victory. The GOP better wake the hell up because if they keep it up, they will go the way of the Whigs. That goes for Karl Rove, a man I respect very much, as well.

For any of you interested in a real taste of Christine O'Donnel, other than what you are seeing on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, watch this video. I happened to catch this speech live on CSPAN and I was STUNNED. That smile on Maddow's face is going to fade when more voters get a sense of what this woman is about. You may very well be looking at the next senator from Delaware, regardless of the ocean of mud being slung at her.

Another interesting interview to watch is that of Carl Paladino by Anderson Cooper.
[video=youtube;mNvQCVonr6U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNvQCVonr6U[/video]
Pretty stunning to watch a guy who takes it up the ass(Anderson Cooper) trying to make a guy(Construction worker) who forwards porn to a small circle of friends feel uncomfortable about it. I'd say Paladino's likability went up two points in my book after that interview, and Coopers dropped by about the same amount.

Either way, Will has it right. If these candidates don't win this election, they certainly will the next one, as more and more people realize what is already obvious to many of us.

 

Yay revolution is in the air

Didn't Karl Rove play a role in lying about the WMDs in Iraq?

Wikipedia's summary of O'donnell's views:

Only thing I have a problem with is the "evolution is just a theory" myth she believes. Did she really say it's not scientific!? But creationism is, right?

Anyway I'm nit-picking. She seems pretty good, if quite up tight. But then again, that's how us foreigners see you yanks

 

You aren't nit picking. Those are very legitimate concerns. Its sad we have to vote someone who is rather ignorant about the beginnings of life into office just to get someone who seems they will staunchly fight for core American values like the right to succeed or fail on our own. The guy she is running against is a Yale man, and a self avowed Marxist. Educated asshole vs Undereducated populist. Quite the choice. I look at it like this. She cant single handedly put creationism in our schools, or overturn Roe v. Wade. She can, however, tow the line on cutting government spending, along with the new group of freshmen we are about to put in office.

 

No, the reason to vote for a better outcome for Democrats is to keep the recovery on track and health care reform a reality, not a hoax.

Most Democrats in the house that are under pressure are conservatives / reactionaries and cycling them out for replacement in two years is worth the prospect of fewer numbers for the Democrats.

An improving Market through October may be the best harbinger than any other for the prospects of the Democrats retaining both chambers of Congress.

Taking seriously the prospects of the Tea-Party candidates winning elections is not the same thing as taking Tea-Party candidates seriously.

 

BreezeWood, if you don't like America's traditions, why the hell do you live there? Why not move to Cuba for their socialist "paradise"? Do you think the founding fathers were wrong to create the constitution? Socialised healthcare violates the constitution and flies in the face everything America stands for. Whereas the Tea Party members are the modern day colonialists, why do you oppose them? Don't you know your own country's history?

You don't belong in the US, I'll swap places with you. You can live here in liberal ol' England with our universal healthcare - then you'll realise how stupid the idea is

 

I am making a quote for those of you who still think the money problem is a matter of "D" or "R".

Here is a link to a speech from the man currently in the office of the Presidency : LINK


In there he says :


"Tell them we can't wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now."



Take Note : The Tea Partiers and some others are already organized. They are ahead. The "D" side is losing fast. The Tea Parties have been organizing and growing for perhaps over a year. With
this democrat "order" to organize, being late, it is a sure fire sign that they are not only losing, but they know they are losing. Which group is the one; "to be taken seriously" ?

 

I concur on both points, although supporting candidates like this often makes me feel like I've made a Hobson's Choice.

I'm an Atheist supporting fundamentalist Christians against people who lie about being Christian. It is a very weird world in which we live.

 

Buy silver and gold as hyperinflation and debasement of the American currency continues unabated.

 

I'd have to agree. If Democrats lose this go around, 2 years from now you'll see a new line of Democrats claiming responsibility for the recovery. Then Obama will get re-elected and the cycle will start again.