Conservative VS Liberal

[BJean 16]

All banks didn't get TARP money so what? That is so not the point.

Banks were bailed out so they would prevent the country from going down the tubes. If they don't make loans and keep the economy going, then we'll continue on a downward spiral. It's pretty simple really.

Maybe I should explain it in Republican fairy tale terms. As an example: Trickle down: banks make lots of money from their fees and loan rates, which is good because when they make lots of profit and become very rich, they are eager to loan money which means that people can buy homes, cars and luxury items. Those manufactured goods create jobs. Middle class America gets to work and get paid and borrow money and buy stuff. The economy prospers. That's what Republicans want you to believe happens.

Real life in America today: banks got really greedy, made bad, bad loans and decisions because of their greed. That created a housing bubble where the price of homes skyrocketed and an artificial market was created. People lost jobs because of their greedy employers farming the work overseas and across the borders. Then banks were stuck with people who could not pay their mortgages or for the money they were carrying on plastic. The bubble burst and we bailed the banks out because if the major banks had failed, we would have experienced a huge financial collapse - far worse than the one we did have. So banks got their money, they are still viable and healthy but now they are just sure that more people are going to default on their loans so they don't want to risk losing the money they're making and so they don't want to make loans. Sooo they don't make loans, people don't buy goods and services, homes, luxury items, etc., the manufacture of these things ceases and the housing market and retail market don't rebound.

That may not be how anybody else in the world sees it, but that's how I see it.

[pattygreen 5]

Things need to be fair for all Americans. From the least of us to the wealthiest. You can't decide who can and can't give to a campaign any more than you can decide how much a corp. can make financially. I'm sure you'd love to have everyone work and distribute the paychecks evenly to all the people, but that's just not how things work.

[pattygreen 5]

All banks didn't get TARP money so what? That is so not the point

Yes, it is my point. If all banks didn't get money from the government, then why should they all be taxed. Those banks who played right and did the right thing should not be punished for the acts of the others who needed the bailout.

The banks are being cautious about who to lend money to now, and for good reason. They are in the business to stay in business, not to lend money to americans who can't pay them back. Been there, done that. Americans who borrow more than they can afford, or more than their home is actually worth are to blame as well as the banks who loaned them the money. The banks are not going to go down that road again, and the people have learned that they need to SAVE up a down payment and then purchase a home. That's why the market is slow.

But I wouldn't worry, it will rebound on its own. It always does. No spending of the government will make it happen, even though they still continue to do it. People need this time to take care of their debt. The government should consider doing the same.

[BJean 16]

And I didn't say ALL banks - you said that. I just said "the" banks which was probably confusing.

When people have a long record of employment with a solid company, they have saved up to make a 20% down payment, have a long record of paying their rent or mortgage and have done everything they need to do to prove that they are a good loan candidate, then the banks should be willing to offer a loan to them so that they can buy a house. This is what will get the housing industry back on track.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Things need to be fair for all Americans. From the least of us to the wealthiest. You can't decide who can and can't give to a campaign any more than you can decide how much a corp. can make financially. I'm sure you'd love to have everyone work and distribute the paychecks evenly to all the people, but that's just not how things work.

Corporations are NOT people. They can't vote. But they were given carte blanche to buy elections with the supreme court ruling by the conservative supreme court (2 out of the 5 appt. by bush).

PEOPLE of all economic means have always been able to donate to campaigns. And corporations could do that with their PAC's which had limits on individual contributions. Now, however, there are no limits to how much corporations can spend.

Now, the fact that the republicans are happy about this decision tells you what? That they are looking forward to their corporate friends buying their elections for them. But how can that be? They are pure and their votes are not for sale.

Let's see how the teabaggers like this ruling. It should be interesting to see if they side with average voters or the big corporations. I think I know. They'll be known as the Exxon Tea Party Movement. Or maybe the GE Tea Party movement.

[BJean 16]

Now not only will the fat cats be lobbying congressional members to ensure that they are protected, they'll be putting the same kind of information out to the general public. I sure hope this backfires on them. But I don't have much faith in the general public. We seem to be easily sucked in by their smooth talk and slick PR.

[BJean 16]

And patty, regarding the banks, I wasn't saying that the banks should be taxed unfairly. In fact, I'm not sure where you got that. But my complaint is that they are not conducting business since getting the TARP money, as they should be.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Now not only will the fat cats be lobbying congressional members to ensure that they are protected, they'll be putting the same kind of information out to the general public. I sure hope this backfires on them. But I don't have much faith in the general public. We seem to be easily sucked in by their smooth talk and slick PR.

I don't have a lot of faith in the general public either. They don't know the difference between TARP (the bank bailout started by BUSH) and the recovery act (under OBAMA) that gave 95% of them a tax cut. Yes, a TAX CUT. But all you see are the teabaggers with signs about Taxed Enough Already. Geez!!! And unemployment extension and help to pay for COBRA. And 7 different tax cuts for businesses.

Republicans always like to talk about tax cuts (for the rich) but why don't they talk about the tax cuts under Pres. Obama for 95% of the working people? Well, we all know why. Never give credit to the president who you want to fail and whose agenda you block at every turn.

[BJean 16]

Yes I'm sure you're right. I think of the term TARP as being the bailout, financially of the banks. I am easily confused though so please keep me on track when I rant off in some presumptuous and incorrect direction.

For the life of me I can't understand the logic of the right wingers. It just makes no sense at all. They hate paying taxes and bellyache about it in high pitched frustrated tones but then they defend tax cuts and incentives to large corporations and the wealthy. Which essentially means that they're presonally taking it in the gut so that the rich can get richer and they get a little poorer.

They say it's that they just don't want taxes for anyone, but that's balderdash. We have to pay taxes to be able to have country that runs smoothly and takes care of the things that people demand from their goverment - such as being safe from threats from terrorists, and of course enjoying all the other benefits of living in a wonderful country.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Yes I'm sure you're right. I think of the term TARP as being the bailout, financially of the banks. I am easily confused though so please keep me on track when I rant off in some presumptuous and incorrect direction.

For the life of me I can't understand the logic of the right wingers. It just makes no sense at all. They hate paying taxes and bellyache about it in high pitched frustrated tones but then they defend tax cuts and incentives to large corporations and the wealthy. Which essentially means that they're presonally taking it in the gut so that the rich can get richer and they get a little poorer.

They say it's that they just don't want taxes for anyone, but that's balderdash. We have to pay taxes to be able to have country that runs smoothly and takes care of the things that people demand from their goverment - such as being safe from threats from terrorists, and of course enjoying all the other benefits of living in a wonderful country.

It's all about the PR firms they hire to handle their message. I read a very disturbing analysis of how they work. They said they (PR firms) - by the time they're done - could get poor people to oppose estate taxes on the rich. That's how good they are. And the republicans and conservatives use this to their advantage way better than the democrats.

If the democrats need to learn anything from the republicans it's how to get their message across. Reduce it to simple sound bite, instill fear, distort the truth (or outright lie) and there you have it.

The republicans will obstruct and fillibuster EVERY thing on the Obama agenda and then will run in November on the democrats not having gotten anything done. And the stupid public will buy it.

[BJean 16]

Right again. I like to think that the Democrats do not go to school on the Republican strategies because they have scruples that the Republicans lack.

This morning they were saying that Nancy Pelosi stated that the health care bill will not pass in the time frame she promised because they have to take their time to be as fair as possible to both sides of the aisle.

Barney Frank was saying that they definitely could not take a Senate vote until the new guy from Mass is on board because it wouldn't be fair.

It is frustrating beyond belief to put up with the dishonesty and unfair dealings of the Republicans, and have our Democratic leaders turn around and defer to those folks' wishes. But, to be honest, I wouldn't be happy if our representatives in congress played that dirty.

As I said once before, in my experience, bad people will eventually pay the piper. It might take a long time, but eventually lies, cheating and stealing catches up to you. And always in a very bad way. I think Richard Nixon is an example of that.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Well, maybe there's some hope in all of the bad news these last couple of days:

FOX News Poll: Obama Would Beat GOP, Tea Party Rivals By Landslide In 2012

Posted in Liberaland by Alan • January 21, 2010, 7:49 PMET • 16 Comments »

Much is being made about Obama’s troubles these days, but a FOX News poll shows some encouraging news.

Buried inside the new Fox News poll are some trial heats for the 2012 presidential election that look awfully good for President Barack Obama. Three candidates are tested against Obama: Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. Obama smashes them all. He leads Romney by a 47-35 margin, Palin by a 55-31 margin, and Gingrich by 53-29 margin. Each margin includes a healthy lead among independent voters.

[BJean 16]

Interesting information. I don't trust anything coming out of Fox though. I suspect that there is some kind of reverse psychology going on and that it will be followed with a backlash mentality that will ensure defeat of the issues and candidates they don't like.

They are very good at what they do.

Please understand that I don't mean what they do is good.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Now not only will the fat cats be lobbying congressional members to ensure that they are protected, they'll be putting the same kind of information out to the general public. I sure hope this backfires on them. But I don't have much faith in the general public. We seem to be easily sucked in by their smooth talk and slick PR.

Let's see how the neo-cons respond to this from the daily kos (with reference to the supreme court ruling):

It also allows for foreign state-owned corporate political power.

Browsing the list of the Fortune 500, you have to notice that many of these companies that do business with America have no allegiance to the American people.

http://money.cnn.com/...

Sony Corporation is Japanese-based and would love to have a say in federal and state electronic energy efficiency regulations.

The United Kingdom's GlaxoSmithKline and Germany's Bayer Corporation would like to ease up on those US FDA guidelines.

There was that British Petroleum deal with Lybia for the Lockerbie bomber not too long ago. But hey, it is a corporation - only human, right?

UK's Aegis Defence Services would also like a seat at the Pentagon to plan the next series of wars. Maybe something in Nigeria will do, or better yet, Yemen. We don't want to upset South Africa's De Beers diamond company or Royal Dutch Shell's oil interests in the region.

That's right for all the tea-bagging you cried about when screaming, "Freedom!" you neglected to see that knife coming from behind.

[pattygreen 5]

Corporations are NOT people. They can't vote. But they were given carte blanche to buy elections with the supreme court ruling by the conservative supreme court (2 out of the 5 appt. by bush).

That's where you are mistaken. Corporations ARE people. without people there would be no corporations. They make up the corporations.

PEOPLE of all economic means have always been able to donate to campaigns. And corporations could do that with their PAC's which had limits on individual contributions. Now, however, there are no limits to how much corporations can spend.

Now, the fact that the republicans are happy about this decision tells you what? That they are looking forward to their corporate friends buying their elections for them. But how can that be? They are pure and their votes are not for sale.

Let's see how the teabaggers like this ruling. It should be interesting to see if they side with average voters or the big corporations. I think I know. They'll be known as the Exxon Tea Party Movement. Or maybe the GE Tea Party movement.

..................................................................