[Ax]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

With so many in the House up for re-election in November, Republicans want to do everything they can do distance themselves from Bush, including voting against his bail-out plan. Which is a shame if it would have worked. Then they won't get re-elected because they failed to act!

I can't tell you why Democrats voted for it, though....

Because it's a very Democratic bill to begin with. One of the main fundamental Republican views is to control government spending and to balance the budget. This would prevent us from balancing the budget for probably twenty years or more if ever. Bush is NOT a Republican, Bush is something on his own but NOT a Republican.


Furthermore, if the government bought all these companies, which is essentially what they'd be doing, that's another step towards socialism which is what modern Democrats are pretty much striving for. The Democratic part is pretty much the socialist party in everything but name now.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by AX

Because it's a very Democratic bill to begin with. One of the main fundamental Republican views is to control government spending and to balance the budget. This would prevent us from balancing the budget for probably twenty years or more if ever. Bush is NOT a Republican, Bush is something on his own but NOT a Republican.

Actually, he IS a Republican. The Republican Party has supported big government, world policing, and other things Democrats are accused of (and generally support) since Nixon. Heck, the roots are even earlier.

It is a Republican problem as much as Democrats. Reagan was involved in major government expansion and a number of unconstitutional military deployments. George H. W. Bush didn't keep to the promise of "no new taxes."

The Republican Party has strayed far from its principles. So far that even the term "conservative" is distasteful to many of us who support limited government, civil liberties, a humble & non-invasive foreign policy, etc.

It drives me nuts that the idea of a "free market" is suffering because Republicans claim their version of corporate assistance, tax loopholes, and subsidies is a "free market." it's not. It's big government. At least Democratic big government is attempting to help the poor.

Ax, I'd like to invite you to explore some of those folks and their thoughts. It sounds like you'd agree with much of what they have to say.

[JerryLove]

The U.S. market as a whole lost $1.4 trillion in value today... twice as much as the price of the theoretical bailout. How does that happen?

And today it regained half that.

Do you think the $700,000,000,000, if spent on bad assets (afterall, if they were good assets we wouldn't need to buy them) will appear as quickly?

The market is run by greedy skittish lemmings/

Originally Posted by AX

Because it's a very Democratic bill to begin with.

George W Bush is a Democrat?!? No passing this one off on us.

One of the main fundamental Republican views is to control government spending and to balance the budget. This would prevent us from balancing the budget for probably twenty years or more if ever. Bush is NOT a Republican, Bush is something on his own but NOT a Republican.

OK, and that means neither is Cheney, GHWB, or Reagan (all of whom massively inreased deficit spending), but don't claim he's a Dem either.

Furthermore, if the government bought all these companies, which is essentially what they'd be doing, that's another step towards socialism which is what modern Democrats are pretty much striving for. The Democratic part is pretty much the socialist party in everything but name now.

Actually, we'd just be buying their bad investments... no reason they should pay for making mistakes in their greed.

[doulos14]

Democrats/liberals love government aid, the split down the middle is a classic example of conservative vs liberal views.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Actually, he IS a Republican. The Republican Party has supported big government, world policing, and other things Democrats are accused of (and generally support) since Nixon. Heck, the roots are even earlier.

It is a Republican problem as much as Democrats. Reagan was involved in major government expansion and a number of unconstitutional military deployments. George H. W. Bush didn't keep to the promise of "no new taxes."

The Republican Party has strayed far from its principles. So far that even the term "conservative" is distasteful to many of us who support limited government, civil liberties, a humble & non-invasive foreign policy, etc.

It drives me nuts that the idea of a "free market" is suffering because Republicans claim their version of corporate assistance, tax loopholes, and subsidies is a "free market." it's not. It's big government. At least Democratic big government is attempting to help the poor.

Shoot, I'm no Republican either, or Democrat for that matter, but Bush is something far worse than Republican... I tend to side with Republican ideals more than Democratic, but as far as the members of either party goes, well they can stuff it.

Ax, I'd like to invite you to explore some of those folks and their thoughts. It sounds like you'd agree with much of what they have to say.

I'll give it a look when I'm coherent enough to read it... I'm very tired at the moment.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And today it regained half that.

Do you think the $700,000,000,000, if spent on bad assets (afterall, if they were good assets we wouldn't need to buy them) will appear as quickly?

The market is run by greedy skittish lemmings/

Wrong... the WORLD is run by greedy skittish lemmings.

George W Bush is a Democrat?!? No passing this one off on us.

I didn' t say that. I'm saying he's not a Republican, he's something completely worse than any Republican or Democrat ever dreamed of being. This man makes McCarthy look like a great leader.

The whole Idea of the Democratic side is that money fixes everything, which is funny because they apparently hate rich people... Traditionally, Democrats have always fixed everything with a big budget government program.

The Republican ideal (note word ideal) is to control government spending within the confines of a balanced budget and let the private sector take charge where the government has no jurisdiction. All the while pushing for higher moral standards in society , a semi-aggressive foreign policy (sometimes even passive-aggressive), and a general love for rich people afraid of change.

Bush takes the worst of both worlds. High spending with no plan whatsoever to control inflation, policing the world and pouring even more money into that. A SUPER hyper aggressive foreign policy where not policing the world and a general callous disregard for people suffering... Actually I'm not sure he even knows they're suffering so I can't really say how callous he is, just dumb. He spends money on things Democrats would never dream of and then lets them bully him into spending even more money.

I call this bill very Democratic because it is a high budget government program. Compare it to the New Deal except that it doesn't make any sense where the New Deal might have worked given the chance, we all know, however, that it was the war that ended the depression, which is kinda odd considering how much we spent on the war.

OK, and that means neither is Cheney, GHWB, or Reagan (all of whom massively inreased deficit spending), but don't claim he's a Dem either.

Cheney is even slimier than Bush, Regan was a Dumbass (yes, I said that, and I DO attribute him for our problems with Iran and Afghanistan, it'd be hard not to), and GWHB was just a pansy who couldn't stand up to a Democratic congress... He didn't side with any Republicans then and certainly didn't please the Dems. He was just a pansy who gave us jr.

Actually, we'd just be buying their bad investments... no reason they should pay for making mistakes in their greed.

Either way it's a bad idea.

[Becky]

I know my plan is universally rejected.. but I still think it would solve most problems..

1. Eliminate Property tax, (putting in some kind of system to where poor/homeless families and individuals receive land, that they can then own.)

2. Start a farming initiative.
This would include hiring people to teach individuals how to farm their own land, and starting up new farms.

3. Temporarily stop buying from over seas companies, or American company's that hire over seas.
The United States currently Imports the majority of our products. If we as a nation put a temporary ban on all products produced outside the U.S. we would be able to provide jobs for everyone, and boost our economy.

anyways, that's my solution to the problem.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Becky

I know my plan is universally rejected.. but I still think it would solve most problems..

1. Eliminate Property tax, (putting in some kind of system to where poor/homeless families and individuals receive land, that they can then own.)

why should people just receive land? shouldn't they pay the fair market value? Home ownership is not a right, it is a privilege.

2. Start a farming initiative.
This would include hiring people to teach individuals how to farm their own land, and starting up new farms.

3. Temporarily stop buying from over seas companies, or American company's that hire over seas.
The United States currently Imports the majority of our products. If we as a nation put a temporary ban on all products produced outside the U.S. we would be able to provide jobs for everyone, and boost our economy.

anyways, that's my solution to the problem.

the rest of it would just send us back in time and reduce our standard of living dramatically, and while I agree that our current standard of living is part of the problem, I don't think becoming Amish is the answer.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by AX

Bush is something far worse than Republican

Party values can shift. The GOP base is now neoconservative. Bush became a strong proponent of that political philosophy after 9/11. It blends a weird sort of social conservatism with an aggressive, some would say bellicose, stance in foreign policy aimed to "protect national interests." It has no real love for small government nor in promoting individual liberties. It has made "conservative" a dirty word.

[Bryan]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-comeback.aspx

[tlj009]

the rest of it would just send us back in time and reduce our standard of living dramatically, and while I agree that our current standard of living is part of the problem, I don't think becoming Amish is the answer.

I'm all for Amish. Except I like the refrigerator.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Party values can shift. The GOP base is now neoconservative. Bush became a strong proponent of that political philosophy after 9/11. It blends a weird sort of social conservatism with an aggressive, some would say bellicose, stance in foreign policy aimed to "protect national interests." It has no real love for small government nor in promoting individual liberties. It has made "conservative" a dirty word.

Yes, but not all neocons are idiots. Bush is an idiot.

[Becky]

I don't see the Amish suffering from our mistakes....

I also don't know why property is a "privilege".

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by Becky

I also don't know why property is a "privilege".

This is a capitalist country

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Becky

I don't see the Amish suffering from our mistakes....

I also don't know why property is a "privilege".

Property tax is one of the few taxes i support. You have to tax something and our current tax system takes over half of our incomes. (I say half because they tax your paycheck, then subsequently everything you buy, and then there's all sorts of other taxes...)... I say leave property tax, import tax, and ATF and Gas Taxes and we'd have enough money if we controlled our spending and kept the government where it needs to be and out of it's non-business....

(Quick Explanation)

In my opinion there are realms of institution and those realms should never be violated by alternate institution.

Government: Does only thing the government can do, such as roads and highways and keep an army to DEFEND it's citizens and only enact laws that it has to and eliminate all extraneous spending.

Societal: dictates morals and current trends. The government has NO business here. ie Gay Marriage and Television censorship. Societal leaders should stand up and guide, without law, the society to moral and ethical standards.

Personal: Private issues that neither society or the government has ANY right to be in.

Economic: Economic should have minimal government interference and should be lead by the private sector and businesses. The government's only interference here is to protect the market from greedy bastards creating monopolies and corporate spying, and certain other things, but a minimal role.

The private sector is not really a realm but they do play an important role. They fund research and play an important role in economics. These people step in where the government shouldn't be as a supportive and guiding role. They should also never be allowed to enforce rules and laws.

That's a brief overview, I could go much further and much more coherently, but I tried to make it concise... Because it is a little off topic but if you look at my model you'll see that the bailout is the government overstepping it's bounds as it does WAY too much.

[Becky]

hms.. interesting.. If we eliminated Income tax, that would make the government less dependent on how well financially people are doing. Which, I guess would be a good thing. I'm definatlly for less government though.